Children: Protection from Physical Abuse

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I declare a voluntary association with the NSPCC.
	The Question was as follows:
	To ask Her Majesty's Government what are their plans for protecting children from physical abuse by adults.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, physical abuse covers a spectrum of violent behaviour against children. We recognise in the Working together to safeguard children inter-agency child protection guidelines that such behaviour could include hitting, shaking, throwing, poisoning, burning or scalding, drowning, suffocating or otherwise causing physical harm to a child.
	As with all other forms of child abuse and neglect the Government are highly committed to protecting children from physical abuse through encouraging, resourcing and monitoring the operation of effective child protection procedures across the country.

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer. Can he tell the House why the Government have chosen to ignore the advice of nearly all child protection professionals who say that a ban on hitting children is necessary in order to protect them from abuse? Does he recognise that there is a good deal of public support for such a ban since MORI found that nearly eight out of 10 parents would support a ban on hitting children provided that caring parents would not be criminalised for trivial smacks? Does he accept that such a ban working in that commonsense way exists already in nine other European countries and that it protects vulnerable children as well as caring parents?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: No, my Lords, I do not accept that. Physical punishment by parents is best left to the judgment of parents with the protection of the law against violent assault. The defence of reasonable chastisement provides a proper balance. As far as concerns public consultation, the noble Baroness will know of the omnibus survey by the Office for National Statistics in 1998. It stated that 88 per cent of respondents were of the view that it was sometimes necessary to smack a naughty child, while only 8 per cent disagreed. At the end of the day it is surely better to leave the matter to the judgment of parents, alongside offering support to parents in the job that they do in bringing up children, within the safeguards of the current law.

Baroness David: My Lords, the Government have accepted "zero tolerance" as their target for domestic violence against women in the home. Why do they still persist in giving children less protection than adults and sending a "carry on smacking" message to parents? Surely the Government should give a lead on this matter.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, in relation to the physical punishment of children, surely the views of parents need to play a major part in this consideration. The consultation undertaken by the Government shows that the great majority of parents wish to retain the possibility of a reasonable use of physical punishment in bringing up their children. For the law to intervene and actually say to parents that they could under no circumstances use physical punishment would be extremely counterproductive. It would criminalise many people and it is not a sensible route down which to go.

Lord Ackner: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House what has happened to the idea, which has been much trailed in recent times, of a reviewable sentence? I have raised the issue over the past 10 years or so. It has been raised by a number of recent reports. It was first suggested—I am sure the Minister will appreciate—by the Home Secretary, Mr R A Butler, who had a committee dealing particularly with the mentally affected prisoner. Has anything been done to put a reviewable sentence in place and thereby achieve an indeterminate sentence, which has many advantages over the life sentence?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, that question was somewhat wide of the Starred Question.

Lord Elton: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the experience of Victoria Climbie shows that something much more fundamental needs to be addressed than whether or not parents can tap their children if they misbehave? Should we not be directing our attention at the failure of all the systems designed to note and react to the evident signs of physical abuse which she was showing?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I could not agree more with the noble Lord. That is why the Government have toughened up the guidance on safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children. We must learn the lessons of these tragic cases. At the same we should not underestimate the general improvements that have been made in child protection procedures nor the fact that the great majority of social workers do a difficult job sometimes under pressurised circumstances. The way through is to ensure that child protection procedures are operated effectively and that we continue to increase resources to personal social services. The establishment of a general social care council to regulate social workers will ensure a higher degree of professionalism and support within the social work profession.

Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, mentioned that nine other countries have laws against physical abuse towards children. Can the Minister say what the impact of those laws has been?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, my understanding is that the evidence is not altogether clear. Certainly it is not enough on its own to justify a total ban. After the consultation that we have undertaken we have reached a sensible conclusion. It allows parents who wish to to use reasonable chastisement but retains the full protection of the law for children when violent assaults take place.

Lord Northbourne: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that in the vast majority of cases where parents use physical punishment it is either because they have been severely provoked by their children or, much more commonly, because they do not know how to discipline their children in any other way? Would it not be better to put the cart before the horse and help parents to understand and to know the ways in which it is possible to guide children and to set boundaries for them before introducing a law?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I do not disagree with the noble Lord. The Government have taken a number of steps to ensure that people are supported in their role as parents, including establishing a national parent helpline and the National Family and Parenting Institute. In addition, the Sure Start schemes in local communities have also provided a number of interesting and valid programmes to support parents in what can often be a challenging and difficult role.

Animal Tissue Research

Baroness Byford: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What measures have been put in place to ensure that animal brains or any other tissue used for research are correctly labelled and stored.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I presume that the Question relates to the department's transmissible spongiform encephalopathy research programme. Most of that research programme is conducted by the department's Veterinary Laboratories Agency or by the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council's Institute for Animal Health. Both have quality systems for the storage and labelling of tissues. Following the discovery of mislabelled samples originally collected for an entirely different purpose and involved in one particular experiment at the institute, urgent reviews of the assurance system are now in progress. We, together with others, will implement all the lessons learnt. There is, however, no indication that that rare lapse in one particular and unusual experiment has compromised other parts of our TSE work.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response and appreciate that the Government are considering the mistakes made. I remind the House of my family's farming interest. Further to his response, is not the Minister concerned that, as recently as 17th December, mistakes were still being made—although, it is true, not within that programme? The department sent the wrong genotype results to five farmers. Will he join me in condemning the comments of his honourable friend Mr Morley when he said that he was glad that the quality control arrangements had been robust enough to pick up those wrong results at an early enough stage? That is not good enough.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I do not quite follow why I should condemn my colleague Mr Morley. He rightly said that the mistakes made in the genotyping of sheep for scrapie were made at the initial stage and immediately identified by the quality control system. Those five farmers were therefore immediately notified. That is part of the system. The problem with the other experiment on sheep's brains, to which I thought that the initial Question related, was that the mislabelling was not picked up early enough. In the case of genotyping, the system worked.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that we on these Benches are relieved that he, at least, knows the difference between a cow and a sheep? Is any additional work now being carried out to make up for the research effectively lost through the invalidation of the earlier work?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am grateful that my noble friend recognises my vastly improving agricultural knowledge in this job. The experiment was a small part of a major programme. It has therefore not been necessary to replace that work. The total programme consists of £17 million of research by the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, another £3 million of research by the Food Standards Agency and more research financed by the research councils.
	A substantial amount of effort is under way to establish the truth about BSE in sheep and other species. That particular experiment, based on out-of-date material collected for an entirely different purpose, was only a minor part of the programme. The rest of the programme is beginning to yield results, although some of the experiments are inevitably long term.

Baroness Northover: My Lords, does the Minister agree that cutting corners by commissioning research on the cheap on samples that were, as he said, collected for other purposes and with a real risk of contamination from the beginning, was, at the least, foolhardy? Was that the best way to protect the national sheep flock or, more importantly, to safeguard public health?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, the initial experiment was one of many commissioned. It was an experiment that required an assay in mice that runs for a long time. The intention was to use the brain material originally collected for a rendering experiment. It was originally intended to establish whether BSE was in scrapie-infested sheep in the early 1990s, when there was clearly a problem with BSE in cattle. It was therefore related to an historic situation, not the current one.
	The only material available was that collected at the time for different purposes. There was therefore not much option but to use old material. Regrettably, at some point between the early 1990s and 1997, when the experiment began, there now appears from our audits to have been serious mislabelling. However, when the experiment was changed to consider the possibility of BSE being in those scrapie-infected sheep, there was no alternative.

The Countess of Mar: My Lords, what is the Minister's position on what I can only describe as pseudo-science—the "what if?" syndrome? On "Farming Today" this morning, there was a discussion about what if sheep had BSE and how much of such sheep we would be able to eat. As a consumer, I would be extremely confused about whether I should eat lamb and how much, and what parts of the lamb I should eat. The same thing happened with the microbacterium avium para tuberculosis in milk. Should I drink milk? Should I drink pasteurised milk? Should I drink milk that is ultra-heat treated or what? Could the Minister play a part in ensuring that proper science is given to the public and not the "what if?" science?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Countess raised two separate issues which she calls "pseudo science". I am sure that it is not correct to call them "pseudo science", although they are based on a hypothesis. The person she heard this morning on "Farming Today" was the chair of SEAC and he was addressing the question: if there were BSE or any TSE in sheep, what parts of the sheep would be affected? That is solid science, but, as we have indicated, there is no proof that there is BSE in sheep. He made it clear, as has the Food Standards Agency, that there is no change in advice to consumers on eating lamb. Indeed, perhaps I may put in a plug and say that British lamb is well worth eating and I advise your Lordships to do so.

The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, has the Minister noted that the UCAS report on the work of the Institute of Animal Health which went wrong in the experiment was carried out using a standard called ISO 17025? That is a standard for the accreditation of testing and calibration laboratories. If the standard is to be used for all laboratories, it will place an enormous burden on ordinary research laboratories. Do the Government have plans to come forward with another standard for research laboratories?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, the review identified systems which might be appropriate but there has been no decision that they should be applied in bodies which the Government fund. The Institute of Animal Health is looking to its own procedures to meet an output equivalent to that standard, but there is no adoption of that standard as such.

Blood Substitutes

Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In so doing, I declare an interest having had my life saved by a blood transfusion.
	The Question was as follows:
	To ask her Majesty's Government whether sufficient use is being made of artificial blood substitutes and alternative treatments for anaemia in cancer patients to help combat any shortage in blood supplies.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the National Blood Service currently meets all NHS demands for blood. There are a number of erythropoietin, or EPO, drugs licensed to shorten the period of anaemia in patients receiving platinum-containing chemotherapy. These are available for clinicians to prescribe when it is clinically beneficial.

Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Is he aware that next year or the year after a test may be available for CJD, in which case there may be a serious shortage of blood as donors may be worried about coming forward because of the effect on life insurance and mortgages?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, first, we are indebted to the 1.9 people million who come forward every year to give blood. Currently blood stocks are in a healthy state. The noble Baroness is right because potentially there is the introduction of a test perhaps within the next three to five years for vCJD. The National Blood Service has carried out a scenario of testing to examine the impact of that test in reducing the number of blood donors. What was quoted in the media was the worst-case scenario when there might be a reduction of 50 per cent in the number of donors. That is very much a worse-case scenario.
	The chief medical officers of the UK held a Better Blood Transfusion Conference which led to the establishment of a national transfusion committee to examine these matters. In particular, it will examine alternatives to blood supplies and whether they are feasible.

Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that his first reply sounded as though everything was fine? However, does he further agree that, because it is impossible to guarantee the adequacy of future blood supplies and because we tend to identify viruses such as CJD, AIDS and Hepatitis C too late for some people, in the interests of security and safety it is imperative that we intensify our search for non-blood products and that this is an area in which cost-cutting will be indefensible?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that question. It is correct to say that the National Blood Service, with the help of many members of the public, has put to right previous problems in relation to the holding of adequate blood supplies. In the past three to four years a tremendous amount of work has been undertaken.
	I agree with my noble friend about the urgency of investigating the appropriate use of alternatives. The National Blood Service set up an appropriate use of blood working group which is looking at ways of minimising exposure to the unknown risk of transmission of vCJD by transfusing blood only when absolutely necessary. It is also—and this is very important—ensuring the most effective and efficient use of blood as an increasingly scarce resource. That group is also examining alternatives to blood transfusion. In addition, the National Blood Service is undertaking another campaign to encourage more people to give blood in the current circumstances.

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, is it not the case that continental countries widely use the alternatives to blood products in cancer treatment? Is it not time that we were ahead of continental countries both in terms of patient outcomes and treatments?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, there are many ways in which the National Health Service can be proud of its achievements. There are many examples of innovative services and high quality teaching and research. We can be pleased with the way in which the National Blood Service responded to a very big problem in blood supplies some years ago. Of course we need to examine alternatives and we will look at the experience of countries abroad. That is why the chief medical officers of the UK held a conference; why a working group has been set up; and why the National Blood Service will be taking that work forward.

Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I, too, declare a non-financial interest as chairman of Cancer Research UK. Following on from the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, is my noble friend aware that there is concern among clinicians about the availability for patient care of funds earmarked for cancer treatments under the national cancer plan? Furthermore, can he assure the House that the Government will monitor rigorously and transparently those fund allocations and their use?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, first, I want to congratulate my noble friend on her appointment as chairman of Cancer Research UK, which brings together the Imperial Cancer Research Fund and the Cancer Research Campaign, both of which have done sterling jobs over the years.
	As regards funding, I can confirm to my noble friend that cancer services remain a key priority for the Government and that the cancer plan projects that in the next financial year there will be an extra £407 million of funding for services. Of that, £76 million will be earmarked within NHS budgets. I can also confirm to her that we will performance-manage the NHS overall in order to ensure that the money is spent wisely and that cancer receives the priority it deserves.

Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, does the Minister agree that erythropoietin may be of more benefit to cancer patients than blood transfusions? Would he go to the United States to see what it is doing and how it has monitored the process?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am afraid that the Chief Whip has said I am not allowed to go. The current state of knowledge of the drug, which we considered as a potential referral to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, and the guidance we have used so far indicates that there simply is not enough evidence on which to make a judgment.
	A number of randomised controlled trials are being undertaken both within the US and Europe. When the results of those trials are known, and when we have more evidence concerning the effectiveness of the drug, we will again consider whether it will be worth referring the drug to NICE.

Foot and Mouth Disease

Lord Monro of Langholm: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What lessons they have learnt from the International Convention on Prevention and Control of Foot-and-Mouth Disease held in Brussels on 12th and 13th December.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, the Brussels conference usefully highlighted some of the key areas the European Union needs to address and we shall be working with our European partners in carrying the work forward. The conference identified the need to develop a broad range of disease control options, based on science and including emergency vaccination, to meet particular circumstances. It was agreed that there was a need for flexibility in the choice of methods for controlling and eradicating the disease, improved communications and an urgent need for tests to differentiate between infected and vaccinated animals. The conference also considered ways of preventing future outbreaks, including tightening up on import controls at the European border.
	A copy of the final report of the conference will be placed in the Library when it becomes available.

Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that full reply. In declaring an interest as a farmer and in view of conflicting media reports, can he confirm, first, that the Government will not take the route of vaccination unless a complete veterinary test becomes available? Secondly, what steps are the Government taking to enforce import controls on food?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, the conference identified that vaccination may be useful as a tool for dealing with the disease. It did not pursue the route of declaring that pre-emptive or prophylactic vaccination was a sensible strategy. If we were to use vaccination as a method to control the spread of disease, it would be of great benefit if the tests were sufficiently developed and validated. To that end, some progress has been made; that is, to differentiate between vaccination and the presence of the virus in diseased animals.
	As regards the question of food imports, through co-ordination of the various agencies we have undertaken several spot checks. We are presently considering whether we need to change our system of administering import controls. We have also requested that the present European regulations on import controls of food be examined in greater detail.

Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, I declare an interest in a family farm. Does the Minister agree that in any future outbreak—let us hope that there will not be any such occurrence—communications will be absolutely vital? Can the noble Lord confirm that the Government are keen to ensure that all farms are on-line? In areas such as the uplands of northern England and Scotland, does the Minister realise that it can take five days to repair a broken telephone line? Does he further appreciate that there is no access to broadband communications in those areas? What are the Government doing, first, to improve telephonic communications, which will make on-line farming at least a possibility? Secondly, and in my view more importantly, in order for farmers to diversify, are the Government addressing the issue of access to broadband communications via the Internet?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, so far as my responsibilities are concerned as regards improving the management of farms, along with streamlining and reducing the burden of regulation, it would be helpful for all farmers to have access to the Internet. It is clear that some difficulties persist in the remoter areas. My colleagues at the Department of Trade and Industry are addressing the issue of ensuring that the whole country is able to engage with current Internet facilities, as well as looking at the strategy for broadband access. However, the immediate benefits of access to the Internet are already recognised by many farmers—probably a higher proportion than most Members of the House would have guessed.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I am sure that the Minister understands that his European colleagues are keen to learn the lessons of the 2001 foot and mouth outbreak in the UK. Given that, do the Government welcome the intention of the EU to hold a public inquiry into the matter?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am not sure that there is any intention on the part of the EU to hold a public inquiry. The Commission will consider all reports of the disease outbreak and will make a full report to the Council. The European Parliament is to establish a temporary committee. However, the European Parliament deliberately did not set up a committee of inquiry. I think that the noble Baroness is misinformed.

Earl Peel: My Lords, given that the Government have agreed the International Convention regulation imposing a 21-day restriction on the movement of livestock, can the Minister tell the House to what extent he thinks that the regulation will impact on the financial well-being of small farmers in the hills?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, as yet the European Commission has not proposed any change to the existing regulations covering foot and mouth disease. It is a matter that it will consider in the light of the Brussels conference and in the light of our own inquiries into control of the disease. Yesterday I announced an interim regime which will apply to movements from around mid-February. That regime is without prejudice to any long-term regime. It will continue to include the 20-day standstill period as a default measure, but in a significant number of cases, alternative arrangements where the 20-day rule will not apply will form a part of that regime. However, it is important that we take a precautionary approach. I believe that most farmers appreciate that.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, perhaps I may press the Minister a little further on the question of food imports. I believe that this matter was discussed by the conference in the light of both legal and illegal imports of meat. From what the Minister has told the House recently, I understand that this is a European matter. Equally, however, I understand that each member state is responsible for its own import controls. Can the Minister clarify the question of exactly who is responsible? If it is the responsibility of the Government, what extra measures have been put in place since the outbreak was first reported?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, the overall regulations on imports into Europe of meat and meat products from third countries is a European matter. Member states keep under their own authority certain aspects of the control regime. The regulations in Britain are slightly tighter than those in many other EU countries, in particular as regards personal food imports. Implementation of the controls is a matter for individual member states. We have been addressing the issue of whether the present range of authorities involved could co-ordinate more effectively, what powers might need to be adjusted and whether any regulatory change may be required on enforcement.
	In my reply to the noble Lord, Lord Monro, I indicated that the method of implementing regulations was also a concern at the European level.

Millennium Dome

The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, I beg leave to ask a Question of which I have given private notice; namely, to ask Her Majesty's Government what binding undertakings have been given by Meridian Delta Limited in return for exclusive partnership arrangements and the leasing of the Millennium Dome, and whether the sole shareholder of the New Millennium Experience Company will explain to Parliament the final report and financial statements of that company.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, we agreed yesterday with Meridian Delta Limited to enter into a period of exclusive negotiations which it is intended will lead to the conclusion of a legally binding agreement which will provide for £200 million of investment in the Dome and facilitate £4 billion of investment in the regeneration of the Greenwich peninsula. Ownership of the Dome will not pass to MDL until that deal is concluded. The terms of the exclusivity involve an end date and provision for the Government to be able to bring the exercise to an end if reasonable progress is not being made.
	MDL has already spent substantial sums on putting its bid together and, in agreeing to enter into exclusive negotiations with us, has committed itself to spending further substantial sums on the legal and consultancy work that will be necessary to reach final agreement. These are serious people and we chose not to announce the proposed deal until we were confident that it was deliverable.
	Following the orderly winding down of operations by the New Millennium Experience Company, the company's directors yesterday took steps to commence a members' voluntary solvent liquidation and I, as NMEC's sole shareholder, have formally appointed Richard Heis and Stephen Treharne, two partners of KPMG, as liquidators.
	NMEC's final annual report and financial statements for the period 1st January 2001 to 18th December 2001, produced for completeness to reflect the state of affairs when the liquidators were appointed, will be available in the Libraries of both Houses later today.

The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House is immensely grateful to the noble and learned Lord for that reply. While I do not in any way underestimate the virtue of the regeneration of the Greenwich peninsula, does the Minister agree that the Dome has had an uncanny habit of mocking expectation? Can he therefore confirm that a contingency plan is in place—the noble and learned Lord vaguely touched on this point in his Answer—in case the arrangement with Meridian Delta Limited goes pear shaped? Moreover, how much will maintenance of the Dome cost, and who will pay, in the intervening period before any deal is eventually finalised?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the implication of the noble Earl's question is that there is not yet a concluded deal with Meridian Delta Limited. That is entirely correct. As I indicated, the announcement was made only when the parties to the arrangement—the Government, Anschutz, Lend Lease and Quintain—were all convinced that it was deliverable. But there is work to do. The concentration at the moment is on that work, which has to be completed by 1st May 2002. Until that work is completed, English Partnerships will be responsible for the maintenance of the Dome. I shall provide in writing the precise figure, on a monthly basis, of the maintenance costs. The maintenance costs will be recouped from the sale proceeds.
	As to whether there is a contingency plan, the current focus is on ensuring that the deal goes through. That is the right place for the concentration of effort to be.

Viscount Falkland: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree that one could be forgiven for being amazed at what appears to be a U-turn? The understanding was that the Government had moved away from the concept of the Dome being an entertainment centre towards other usage. In fact, an offer was placed before the noble and learned Lord. As I understand it from the newspapers—the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—we are now moving back towards entertainment and sport. As it is sketched out, the deal does not look to be a good one. As I understand it—again the noble and learned Lord will correct me if I am wrong—there will be a long, 999-year lease, for no consideration, to a major entertainment company which will build, over a period of years, an entertainment centre which may or may not be successful. Are we not moving back to one of the overriding problems of the concept originally—that is, content. Are the Government now relying again on content for recouping what has already been lost? One cannot call it short-termism because there will be a period of 25 years, but is there not a better way for the Government to recoup costs than again relying on paying customers coming to an area of London which may or may not attract them? Would it not be better to rely on the site's development, with warehouses, housing and so on?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, it would not be right to say that it involves a U-turn. In February this year the Government withdrew from the discussions they were having with Legacy plc. The Government believed that the deal was not deliverable and therefore withdrew. Thereafter, through their agents, the Government engaged with those in the market who would be capable of delivering a long-term future for the Dome and the peninsula. There are probably only a small number of players able to deliver the complex arrangements necessary. The market has come forward with Anschutz, which is a very substantial entertainment organisation with experience of building and operating arenas of the kind proposed for the inside of the Dome. Anschutz believes that it is a deliverable venture. It is much better able than governments or the public sector to make judgments of that kind and it is entirely committed to the proposal. It is Anschutz's judgment that it is deliverable.
	Having shortened to three the number of companies with which we were negotiating, we decided and announced yesterday that we would now reduce it to one, Meridian Delta Limited, because it offered the most deliverable future for the peninsula and the Dome. I do not think that that is going backwards or making a U-turn. It provides the possibility of an exciting future for the peninsula and the Dome, in particular because it ensures public access to the Dome in the long-term future.
	As to whether this is a bad deal, the noble Viscount is absolutely right to say that there is no up-front payment. However, it is a standard property deal where you go into partnership to ensure that, as the value of the land goes up after development, the seller benefits as well. There is one particular aspect that I should like to emphasise: there can be no recourse for further expenditure in relation to the Dome.

Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, did my noble and learned friend have the opportunity this morning to listen to one of the founding fathers of the Dome project, the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, on the "Today" programme? Does he agree with the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, that these proposed arrangements seem to offer a real basis for a fundamental regeneration of the south-east area of London? On the radio, the noble Lord went on to compare this with the Canary Wharf project and what that had meant in terms of regeneration.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I did not have an opportunity to hear the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, on the radio. My noble friend will know that the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, was one of the original millennium commissioners who made the decision to have the Dome at Greenwich. He has always been personally committed to the proposition that one of the purposes for it being put there was the regeneration of the Greenwich peninsula. Lend Lease, one of the developers and part of Meridian Delta Limited partnership, said yesterday that it expected there to be a £4 billion investment over 25 years in the Greenwich peninsula. Surely one of the things we should have been aiming for in looking for a future for the Dome and the peninsula was something which involved long-term investment in Greenwich.

Viscount Astor: My Lords, although the noble and learned Lord said that this is not a U-turn, it is certainly a major change in policy. It is unfortunate that the announcement had to be dragged out of the noble and learned Lord by way of a Private Notice Question, rather than in a Statement yesterday as opposed to a Written Answer. Noble Lords wish to enter into this debate, which shows that a Statement was necessary.
	I am not sure whether or not to congratulate the noble and learned Lord. It remains to be seen whether or not he has pulled off a conjuring trick for Christmas. He has certainly tried to produce a white rabbit from a hat, but we do not know whether he will succeed—we have to wait until May.
	The Minister must have looked at the alternatives. What would have been the value of the site if the Dome were to be demolished? How much money would he receive if the site were sold without this building? A large event is to be held in the Dome at New Year. Can the noble and learned Lord confirm that the Dome has been let on an arm's-length basis and will generate a net profit to its operators and not a cost? I understand that a substantial sum of money has been paid to refurbish the Dome to get it ready for New Year.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, as to the first point, it was made absolutely clear that the details were to be given first to Parliament, and that is how the matter was dealt with; namely, by a Written Answer in this place and another place. Secondly, the precedent followed in regard to the Written Answer was exactly the same as that for the announcement in respect of Nomura and Legacy. Thirdly, I very much welcomed the opportunity to have an oral discussion with the House today and I readily agreed to the PNQ when it was tabled.
	The noble Viscount said he did not know whether or not to welcome the announcement—unlike the Shadow Culture Secretary, Mr Tim Yeo, who rightly said that the kinds of proposals included here are the ones that one would wish to see in the Dome. I entirely agree with that.
	The noble Viscount asked about the arrangements for the party on 31st December. The Ministry of Sound has entered into an arm's-length contract with EP for the use of the Dome. It is paying a rental of £75,000. There is a profit-sharing arrangement between EP and the Ministry of Sound in relation to the party which will produce a profit to EP should significant numbers attend. The expenses for EP consist of providing a number of people on the site that night. Other than that, no additional expense has been incurred by EP. The expenses for the party will be incurred by the Ministry of Sound. In the context that the party will be profitable, it will produce a return for EP.

Business

Lord Carter: My Lords, between the two short debates this afternoon, my noble friend Lord Bach will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement being made in another place on the International Security Assistance Force for Kabul. Following that, my noble friend Lady Blackstone will repeat as a Statement an Answer to a Private Notice Question in another place on the siting, the purpose and funding of a national stadium.
	When I announced the dates of the Christmas Recess a few weeks ago, I said that subject to the progress of business the House would rise at the end of business tomorrow, Thursday 20th December, and return on Monday 7th January. I am delighted to say that since I made that announcement co-operation through the usual channels has been constructive and productive—as always—and, as a result, it will be possible to return from our Christmas break a day later. The House will therefore reassemble at 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday 8th January, not on Monday 7th January as previously announced.
	The Second Reading of the Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Bill, which was to have been taken on Monday 7th, will now be taken as first business on Tuesday 8th. I hope that your Lordships and the staff of the House will look on this extra day of rest as an early Christmas present from the usual channels. Of course, if your Lordships would prefer it if the House sat on Monday 7th January, I shall be happy to arrange a third day's debate on House of Lords reform!

Lord Burnham: My Lords, I happen to have tabled the first Question for Monday 7th January, relating to Railtrack, which I am sure the Government are anxious to answer. What will happen to that Question?

Lord Carter: My Lords, I am afraid that it will not be taken on Monday 7th January as the House will not sit. Perhaps I may say to the House that I did point out to the usual channels that all four Questions on the first day back were from the Opposition, and the usual channels agreed that the day should be lost.

Child Poverty

Lord Harrison: rose to call attention to Government policy on child poverty; and to move for Papers.
	My Lords, children are at the cutting edge of poverty. Whenever a family, a neighbourhood or a country falls into poverty, it is children who feel it most. It is children, voiceless and voteless, who suffer in silence and bewilderment. In a world in which we can transmit in a trice pictures round the world of malnourished, pot-bellied poverty-stricken children and watch them on our TV sets at home, we have failed to use that same cutting edge of technology to eradicate the poverty that debilitates and kills millions of children world-wide each year.
	It is time to act. Altruism alone should propel us towards action to defeat child poverty. But if altruism is insufficient, our own self-interest, if not famine, should provide the spur. I believe that the events of 11th September provide a clear link between poverty world-wide and the rootlessness and restlessness that poverty spawns and which evil men exploit. The love of money may be the root of all evil, but the lack of money runs a close second.
	Poverty begins at home. I have seen child poverty in Britain, even in some of our wealthiest cities. As a local councillor 20 years ago, I paid home visits to children being brought up in jobless households, housed in accommodation where condensation dripped off the walls of rooms where schoolchildren were expected to live, study and grow up. Poor housing led to fitful education and compromised health. Poverty can grind down even the best of us.
	I have seen child poverty in Europe, both inside and outside the European Union. However, I am heartened by the economic progress of countries such as Spain, Italy, Portugal, Greece and Ireland, and the benefits that such wealth has brought to the children of those countries. I hope that the applicant countries of eastern and central Europe will likewise, under the umbrella of the European Union, improve their economies—the key to tackling poverty—and thereby help their children to satisfy the hunger of both brain and belly. We do not say it often enough: the European Union can be, and is, a force for good.
	In the light of that, it is salutary to learn, according to the Government's excellent publication Tackling Child Poverty, issued last week in conjunction with the Pre-Budget Report, that, on some measures at least, United Kingdom levels of child poverty are poorer than those of our partners in the rest of the European Union.
	I have seen child poverty world-wide: the street children in the favelas of Rio, the estranged children in the refugee camps of Jordan; and in Indo-China, by the banks of the Mekong river, I have sat down and wept at our inability in a modern world to provide for all our children, not the least the limbless children of Cambodia and Laos.
	But in the aftermath of the events of 11th September, I sense a renewed enthusiasm to tackle global problems, signalled by the Prime Minister's determination never again to neglect impoverished countries such as Afghanistan. The war on poverty must be waged with the same despatch as the war on terror.
	In the political combination of Gordon Brown and Clare Short, is it not legitimate to hope for real progress in the fight against child poverty both at home and abroad? While I pay tribute to the sterling work done by the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker of Wallasey, who can remember a Chancellor and a development Minister working so closely and efficiently together as the present incumbents do? We must not squander the conjunction of competence and conviction which is to be found in Short and Brown. Indeed, we must build on the fresh domestic, European and international consensus on child poverty that is emerging. I am proud that Britain is leading the charge.
	At home, the Government have pledged to abolish child poverty in a generation and halve it in 10 years. Save the Children acknowledges that 1.2 million children in the United Kingdom will be lifted out of relative poverty because of the policies pursued by the Labour Government. Examples are the 26 per cent real terms increase in child benefit and the introduction of the child tax credit and the working families' tax credit.
	Redistribution in favour of poorer families has been a feature of the Chancellor's many Budgets. But the stealth tax credits do not always get the same billing as the so-called stealth taxes. But still, one in three children in modern Britain is classed as poor—that is, living in a household with an income below half the national average. This compares unfavourably with the one in 10 children deemed poor when Labour left office in 1979—a sorry legacy of the Rip Van Winkle years of neglect, when others who were responsible nodded off on their childcare watch. One in six children in modern Britain live in workless households and, together with some 10,000 children in lone parent families, have slipped into the statistics of poverty.
	I ask my noble friend the Minister: what more can the Government do to fulfil their laudable aim of eliminating child poverty? Can additional support for the severely poor—especially for children of lone parent families—be identified as a priority of the new Government? Can income support for families with children, especially those in larger families, be further substantially lifted? Can families with younger children be particularly helped? Will the integrated child credit, when it is introduced in 2003, be set at a level consistent with a healthy minimum income standard? More precisely, should not the child tax credit legislation be extended to cover all children up to the age of 18? Those children in non-advanced education and training must not be discriminated against.
	Will the Government tackle some of the lacunae and anomalies associated with the housing benefits system, the position of children in care, disabled children and those families who currently fall outside the benefits system? These measures, alongside the outstanding achievements of the 1997-2001 Parliament, will put us on the path of eliminating child poverty—poverty which my own children have seen even in the schools of leafy Cheshire. My son tells me of a school lad whose family were too poor to buy him sports kit, so he turned up in pyjama bottoms instead, to the ridicule of his peers. My daughter notes how, on non-uniform Fridays, some poorer children used to stay away, loath to pay the 50p privilege penalty. Others turned up in school uniform, reluctant to show off their sad rags against others' glad rags. Too often, such outward signs of poverty went hand in hand with academic weakness.
	To the ranks of those who are concerned with children's issues, I take this opportunity to welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, and the noble Lord, Lord Adebowale, whose maiden speeches we await with great interest.
	Will the Government ensure that the development of the single European market, of which I am a passionate advocate, is fashioned in a way to benefit all the citizens of the European Union in the distribution of the wealth that it creates? The pitfalls of the free movement of goods, services and people—which means workers, their families and their children—should be anticipated. As Commissioner Mario Monti once reminded me, tomorrow's single market is being created for today's children, but only if we create it with children in mind.
	Will the Government continue to support Clare Short in her drive to ensure that the overseas aid spent through the EU by the 15 member states is spent wisely and rationally? I hope that the Government can be represented at January's Brussels conference mounted by the splendid EURONET group, entitled "Developing a Coherent Approach to Child Poverty and Social Exclusion in Europe". Will the Government also remind the Commission to be careful of its language? When the Commission talks of "forgiving" debts in the developing world, it should be reminded that the poor have no reason to ask for forgiveness.
	World-wide, one child in four is brought up in absolute poverty, with all the ills that attend such a poor start in life. As War on Want points out in its whole picture campaign, an evil such as child labour is a symptom, not a cause, of child poverty. That poverty must be addressed to eliminate the attendant ills. I am therefore exhilarated that in February this year, Ministers Brown and Short launched an international child poverty initiative, with the triple goals of halving absolute poverty, achieving universal primary education and reducing infant deaths by two-thirds by 2015.
	Chancellor Brown's November speech to the Federal Reserve in New York took up the impetus of September 11th. He demanded that rich countries increase their development assistance budget by 50 billion dollars each year. That is achievable, but it needs real political will. We can match the will-o'-the-wisp aspiration, which seems to have been around all my lifetime, that the developed nations should set aside 0.7 per cent of their GDP for overseas development assistance. Come that day, we will have provided the world with a cutting edge to defeat poverty and help poverty's deepest victims—children—to welcome a brave new world and a brand new day of hope. I beg to move for Papers.

The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, for giving us an opportunity this afternoon to debate this important and timely subject. As your Lordships are aware, the Chancellor's efforts to make further inroads into world poverty and to gather £50 billion internationally to attack it have been in the news this week. I look forward very much to the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Adebowale, who has been good enough to open the doors of Centrepoint for me over the past three years. I am grateful to him for that.
	I shall concentrate on poverty—not especially income poverty, but poverty as it applies to those people who do not have the means to procure the necessaries of life. I shall consider the stress that poverty puts on families and its consequential impact on children and their development. I emphasise that many poor families do an excellent job of rearing their children and many well balanced people come out of poverty.
	Among the young people whom I meet at Centrepoint, I often notice a clear distinction between the asylum seekers and the other young people. One asylum seeker with whom I have played chess for several months was always impeccably turned out and took great care about his personal appearance. He was always courteous and thoughtful. When I occasionally beat him at chess, he would say how much he enjoyed playing with me and what a pleasure it was. He had clear ambitions for the future. He wished to have a family and to establish himself as a computer programmer—and all that despite living in an emergency hostel in difficult circumstances and not being able to sleep well at night.
	I contrast him with another young man whom I met, who had grime beneath his fingernails every time I saw him. He had been taken into care at the age of eight and subsequently been involved in the criminal justice system before becoming homeless. He had difficulty forming relationships of any depth with others, although he could easily converse about subjects such as films. His ambition was to visit Thailand and to experiment with drugs.
	Another young woman whom I knew would attack her wrists with a razor blade from time to time. She was successful in art and had a commission to produce artwork for a City company, but even so I would see her after an exhibition and find that she had recently cut her wrists again.
	I remember another woman who was talking to a hostel worker about her trip to Ibiza and the delights of the drugs there and the opportunities to make love with people. At the same time, she would be touching the leg of this man whom she had not met before.
	I stress that those people represent only part of the group that I come across. Another young man was at a hostel for the long-term homeless during the winter time and was expelled for breaking the rules. When I knew him he was taciturn and clearly had great difficulty relating to people. When he was expelled—for quite reasonable causes, as far as I can understand—he held a deep grievance against those who had expelled him. That grievance against authority, adults and institutions is quite common among young people who have not had an adequate start in life.
	Those experiences make me wonder what is at the roots of such behaviour. I remind your Lordships about the Calecott family who, when I visited them, had been living in bed-and-breakfast accommodation for 12 months. The mother was on sticks and had an infection to her pelvis. The father spoke no English. They had three children, aged 11, five and one. There were no cooking facilities, so they had to live on a take-away meal each day and snacks in between. The mother was unable to provide formula milk for her child because there were no cooking facilities. She was therefore unable to take medication for her ailment, because she did not want to pass on the drug to her child by breast feeding. There was nowhere for the children to play as the bed and breakfast was on a busy main road, and the courtyard at the back was open to the children for three or so hours only on Sundays.
	The conditions had immediate impacts on the children. The five-year-old was having nightmares, waking in the night and showing other symptoms of anxiety. The mother, clearly an anxious person, had bitten her fingernails to the quick. Many factors were interfering with the mother's ability to nurture her children. Those factors were caused by poverty; they were not of the mother's own making.
	All the child psychotherapists and experts to whom I have spoken about child development emphasise the importance of a child's early attachment to its primary carer. The first two years of a child's life are absolutely critical in that process. Many of your Lordships will be aware of the work of Bowlby, in the 1960s, the more recent work of Rutter, and the continuing research into attachment. That work shows that some infants and young children are simply constitutionally stronger than others and can adjust to quite bad neglect and attachment difficulties. Although it is possible to form attachments in later life, which can do much to mitigate earlier deprivation, serious problems may remain.
	Young people who have grown up in such conditions are often very impulsive, self-destructive and hostile to others. They may also foster a grievance because they never received the care that they so desperately needed. They may also show a lack of resilience so that the usual hurdles facing all adolescents—exams and problems with parents or in obtaining a job—are higher for them. They are also more likely to fall at those hurdles.
	In the 1998 Office for National Statistics report entitled Psychiatric Morbidity Among Prisoners, the researcher found that 64 per cent of the 505 male prisoners chosen at random and clinically interviewed had personality disorders. That research demonstrates the very strong association between poor early parenting and personality disorders. I have tried to paint a picture illustrating the fact that children are put at greater risk for the rest of their lives if parents and families are kept in poverty and forced to face the consequent pressures.
	I praise the Government for their prudence and consideration. They have maintained the public's confidence and are now beginning to invest in public services, including the National Health Service and education. They are also legislating for those in need, as demonstrated by their Homelessness Bill. They are attempting to tackle income poverty with tax credits, and to introduce earlier interventions such as Sure Start for children up to four.
	I warmly welcome the Government's achievements on those issues. It is essential to provide structures that enable all families to thrive. In its recent report, Monitoring poverty and social exclusion 2001, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation reports:
	"For the first time"—
	in the four years in which the report has been published—
	"the number of indicators which improved over the latest year clearly exceeds the number which got worse."
	That is very good news.
	One of my concerns about tax credits is that, although I recognise the value of work for families in poverty, many families are not in work and the children in those families are at greater risk. A child's early years are crucial. In those years, children need a parent nearby to make them the centre of attention. Do the Government recognise that need, and what are they doing to free parents as far as possible to provide that attention? I should be grateful if the Minister would answer those questions either in her reply or in writing.

Lord Desai: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Harrison for initiating this debate on child poverty. As he pointed out in his powerful survey, the problem is both great and urgent in countries all around the world. He also made it clear that we shall only be storing problems for ourselves if we do not tackle the issue now.
	I shall, in a fairly brief speech, concentrate on child poverty in the United Kingdom. At the conclusion of his speech, the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, asked how we can best tackle child poverty given our urgent desire and commitment to do so. In his Budgets since 1997, my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has introduced innovative policies to reshape the notion of redistribution. While we usually think of redistribution as a transfer from those in high-income deciles to those in lower ones, the Chancellor has specifically distinguished those with children from those without children. He has therefore indirectly made the Government's redistribution policy more needs-based.
	Such redistribution has occurred in measures such as the working families' tax credit and the new child benefit, which have made considerable improvements in child poverty levels. Nevertheless, problems remain—despite the fact that we are the ninth richest country in the world and that, in the past five or six years, we have had very high employment levels. We therefore have to ask ourselves why, despite relatively good economic growth and the Government's commitment to tackle child poverty, the problem has proved so persistent.
	There are two aspects to the problem. First, child poverty is essentially a by-product or adjunct to parental poverty, especially in lone-parent families which are usually headed by women. Moreover, women's ability to work depends very much on the age and number of their children. Although we have tried to encourage single mothers to go to work, there is a clear conflict between that objective and the need to care for small children. We therefore have to address the issue of women's poverty, especially in the case of single women, and its consequences for children. We tend to think of dealing with child poverty in terms of provision for children, but perhaps we should think of it more in terms of provision for parents while their children are young.
	Secondly, many of those who have poor children are out of the "economically active" category. Consequently, those parents are not helped by provision made in the tax system. Regardless of how cleverly we devise tax incentives in measures such as the working families' tax credit, the core poverty of economically inactive families and their children will not be tackled. That in a sense again throws us back to thinking of other kinds of issues, especially how to introduce income entitlements for people who are not in the economically active category.
	On previous occasions I have spoken about citizens' income or basic income. That is a distant ideal but when we think of income support or any other income entitlement, we ought to think creatively about allowing the payment of an extra dollar, as it were, for smaller children. I know that much is being done. I do not deny that we have in place a child benefit system, an income support system and various other measures. But somehow they are not working at the lowest end. The question I have, not for the Minister as such but for all of us, is the following. How do we in this day and age make it possible for people who cannot work for one reason or another—there are many reasons why they cannot work—to receive a temporary increase in income support or some entitlement which will at least protect children from suffering the long-term problems of growing up in poverty? We are talking about the education, health and housing of small children. The way we tackle that matter is a problem which still troubles us all.
	In other contexts, for the elderly, for example, there is the minimum income guarantee and other such measures. For people in work there is income supplement through the tax system. If we could, for specific time periods for families with children, think of an extra temporary increase in income and devise a shadow basic income scheme for such families, that may be the way to tackle child poverty. I am sure that there is commitment on this question; what we lack are instruments. I hope that debates such as this will make us think about those instruments.

The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, I share, I am sure, the gratitude of the whole House to the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, for giving us the opportunity to debate this matter.
	For a number of years I served on the team of a parish in Nottingham where Coates and Silburn did some important research which led to the publication of an epoch making book, Poverty: the Forgotten Englishmen. That book blew a hole in the "You have never had it so good" generation's understanding of our country's life. The face of poverty in our children is especially offensive. However, as the debate bears witness, child poverty is alive and well in Britain, as well as in the wider world, as we get into the 21st century. The fact that Her Majesty's Government have made this a target of their policy both here and overseas is evidence that in the highest places of politics that fact is accepted.
	This country has one of the highest rates of child poverty in Europe. That must prompt a sense of shame about our performance given that we reckon ourselves to be on the leading edge of economic development in our time. The Chancellor of the Exchequer's invitation last week to a number of people to attend a conference to examine some of those issues is evidence of their importance. It was timely and welcome. The fact that the invitation was extended to the Archbishop and to leaders of the other faith communities is recognition of the important role that the Churches and faith communities play in our communities in tackling some of those questions.
	Clergy and leaders of faith communities do not move into some of the stressed communities in our country; they live there. In living there, they seek to bring ministry to bear to families and to children through the schools and through the networks of the community. They seek to see and then to tackle some of the extraordinary experience of poverty about which we have heard in today's debate.
	Government cannot achieve their aims, either internationally or in this country, on their own. They will need to harness the deepest and finest resources on the ground in our communities, rooted in the most profound of moral values and, if I dare say so, even of spiritual life if we are to succeed in this task. If I am right, the gurdwaras, the mosques, the pentecostal churches and the parish churches of our stressed communities will be key elements of the partnership. Together with government, we shall have to challenge the corporate sector to provide some resources for tackling the task.
	What do children need? Clearly, they need secure, loving homes where they are safe and can grow up into adult life in a context of consistent loving relationships and values. If we are to say to parents, "Children are a trust who give you inescapable responsibilities", then we, as a caring community, must ensure that parents have the skills, the material resources and their place in society to enable them to meet that trust.
	Family breakdown is a cause of emotional and material poverty among children. Unemployment is a cause of stress and material poverty among children. Some 80 per cent of child poverty has an association with unemployment. Bad and inadequate housing is a cause of stigma, embarrassment, ill health and deprivation to children. But how are we to see our children? Not, I suggest, in this season of the year with a kind of romantic slush that overwhelms them with kindness for a brief period of the year and then effectively abandons them for the rest—seen at Christmas, not heard for the rest of the year.
	Children carry the full dignity and sacred worth of every single human being. They have a right to be treated as such by us all. Indeed, listening to the Starred Question on children today, a strong moral case can be made that we should treat children with the same respect and value with which we expect to treat one another as adults. This full humanity, bodily, social, material, emotional and spiritual, is to be provided for in meeting the needs of children today.
	As many noble Lords will know, I chair the board of Christian Aid. We know of the tens of thousands of children in our world who are effectively slaves at work and of the millions—dare I say it?—who are threatened with growing up as orphans because of AIDS. I should be interested to hear from the Government something of the work they are doing to support communities deeply affected by AIDS. I refer to the multitudes of children who live in places—I have seen some of these places on visits to Africa in particular—where there is no schooling, or what schooling there is has no resources because the country concerned is in economic chaos or weighed down with unacceptable levels of debt.
	But I also know that at this time of the year on the streets of our own cities children are being driven to prostitution. Larger numbers than we care to think live with physical and emotional abuse in their own homes, or, especially at the season of Christmas, will be in terror as they watch their own parents fight it out in domestic violence.
	It is especially good to be present to hear the maiden speeches of the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, and the noble Lord, Lord Adebowale. They will have huge contributions to make on these matters.
	We lock up children in secure units because we do not know what to do with them in terms of their violent behaviour. And we take children away from their homes because their parents are either violent to them or do not have the emotional resources to cope with parenting. In Britain at the end of 2001, at Christmas, these things will be happening in our own country.
	In his Dimbleby lecture, Bill Clinton spoke of the war in Afghanistan costing over 1 billion dollars per month. He went on to make the telling point that the war against poverty costs much less and achieves much more. We are well served by the policies the Government are pursuing; and now we are at a moment of great opportunity with the leadership shown in these matters by the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for International Development. We must support and press our Government to achieve these aims so that our own house is put in order.
	That is what we are meant to be doing in this season of Advent, if noble Lords will forgive a Christian theme. As we approach the season of Christmas, when we believe that the face of God meets us in the face of a vulnerable child, for God's sake, and for the sake of our children in and out of season, let us rid our nation and our world of poverty in our lifetime.

Baroness Howarth of Breckland: My Lords, I have three good reasons for thanking the noble Lord, Lord Harrison. The first is for the opportunity to make this speech. I thought that I should end this term having listened to much about terrorism—necessary but interminable—but never having had the opportunity to talk on the subject about which I care most: that is, children. Secondly, I thank the noble Lord for reminding us about children across the world. I shall talk mainly about children in this country. However, earlier this year I visited India and saw street children. I hope that in this country we never see a child in the state in which I saw some children there. Having said that, I have seen children in doorways; I have seen them carried on the shoulders of their mothers, begging in trains. When we look abroad, we should remind ourselves that much of that happens on our own doorsteps, shocking as that may be.
	I think that a maiden speech is a time for noble Lords to learn something about the person speaking as well as the issue. I have a vivid memory of being a small girl in Sheffield, in my primary school, and of a classmate prodding me in the back, saying, "Valerie Howarth, your socks are all darned". We were not poor in comparison with the other people on the large Parson Cross housing estate where I was raised, but I have spent most of my life close to those who have experienced poverty at a significant level. Being poor does not predestine people to failure or make them violent, abusive, drug addicts or criminals. But grinding hardship, the struggle to keep out of debt, homelessness, inadequate housing and the constant fight against ever-increasing odds leading to mental illness and low physical care are the breeding ground for social ills.
	I begin this way because many will say that social exclusion—the hygienic word for poverty—is no excuse for anti-social behaviour; and, indeed, it is not. But we know that there is a correlation between these issues and if by well thought out policies such as those on which the Government are at present engaged we could reduce violence, abuse and illness in our society, we should surely make every effort to do so.
	The Government have many innovative programmes to tackle poverty. Increases in universal child benefit, the working families' tax credit and income support were outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Desai. They are complemented by new projects such as Sure Start which makes a real difference for young children, as I have seen in local communities, and Connexions which links personal advisers to young people to keep them in education. Both are essential—the latter in particular because education is the one sure way of getting out of the poverty trap.
	Not all families manage their way around these benefit schemes. I have a friend—her mother was a client of mine in the past so social work is sometimes pretty consistent—a single mother who is attempting to take herself off benefit and into work and training. She has ended up in such a muddle that she now has huge rent arrears. Some families find it very difficult to sort their way through the maze of benefits. But she is a good mother and I shall do all in my power to help her.
	As a social worker, a previous director of social services and Chief Executive of ChildLine, I have worked with dozens of families in difficulties and listened to hundreds of children. I have talked with men and women in prison and mental hospitals. Poverty was part of many of their stories. Poverty breeds violence. Through stress it brings depression, resentment and the attendant anti-social behaviour which we all abhor. Family breakdown, including serious violent outbursts, can often be the outcome of financial strain with disastrous consequences for children. Of course, poverty is not the only reason for violence and violence is far from being a feature in every low income family. But children talking to ChildLine about their experience of family conflict often link rows to lack of money. When I talk of rows, I am not talking about the polite argument that some may have over the dinner table. One child called and talked to me, having prised the hands of her father from the throat of her mother.
	Violence is a factor in total family breakdown adding to deprivation in a child's life. Seventeen thousand children a year pass through the hectic and often emotionally fraught environment of women's refuges. Those refuges will provide a safe haven from violence but, at a stroke, a child will have education, friendships and extended kinships disrupted and sometimes lost forever.
	Violence is also a key feature in the development of sex offenders, as I know as the Vice Chair of the Lucy Faithfull Foundation. Recent studies have confirmed this connection; and while not all violent men are abusers nor from poor homes, many sex offenders have both those features in their history.
	A poor income usually also means a poor diet; and here I declare an interest as a board member of the Food Standards Agency. The FSA is shortly to launch a major new low income diet and nutrition survey which will make a contribution to the Government's wider strategy on health issues. There is a particular concern for young people with evidence that eating patterns established in adolescence are likely to remain through adult life. Low income is a crucial factor in poor diet and a barrier to dietary change. A child's eating habits will play a major part in their physical development, general health, capacity to concentrate, and thus their successful passage through education. It is also vital for their emotional health that they do not experience their mother's failure to eat properly in order to ensure that they do; nor that she finds herself in prostitution in order to provide for them.
	For many children coming from poor backgrounds, the breakdown of their family will result in them becoming looked-after children—children in care. Over 58,000 children are currently in local authority care. The Quality Protects programme has many measures intended to give this most vulnerable group of children and young people a decent start in life. However, they are not targeted specifically in the present nutritional policy and it would be good to hear from the Minister how that will be taken forward in future plans.
	As noble Lords will know, in most circumstances it would be best for the child to stay with his or her family. Many new programmes have been mentioned earlier but not all families are able to use them. Voluntary organisations like NCH are doing much to help by providing family centres and community support groups. These can give a new sense of hope, self-worth and dignity to mothers who had almost given up, and consequently a lift to their children. But for some families the steady support of a local authority social worker will make all the difference. Whatever the public perception of social workers, day after day in communities throughout the country they are helping families with the most complex personal and social difficulties, while at the same time watching over the care, development and protection of their children. Sometimes they will make mistakes and occasionally, as in all professions, they will not be of the calibre that we would hope to see. At the moment there is a serious shortage of social workers in many local authorities. They undertake the work that many would rather not see. If poverty was a real issue, would our Benches here not be fuller this afternoon? It would be helpful to know about plans to attract more people into social work and to know how they can be better sustained and developed.
	I began with the story of my darned socks. Why do I remember it so long after? Is it the slight, the shame? Not at all. When I reached home, indignant at the insult, I recounted the story to my mother. "Never mind, love", she said, "your classmate probably has holes in her socks. She might not have anyone who loves her enough to do all that darning".
	The problems of poverty are complex. The solutions are difficult and need to be sustained over a long period of time to gain results, but the end aim is simple. These programmes need to be long-term sustained in order that every child has someone who loves her enough to ensure a successful move to the adult world; and, who knows, they might just end up in your Lordships' House.

Noble Lords: Hear, hear!

Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, I am delighted to follow the truly excellent and moving speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, to congratulate her, and to welcome her to your Lordships' House. Her speech is enlightened by her own vast experience of working with children and families. She is best known, of course, for building up Childline, of which she was the chief executive. She has also been a director of social services and involved with child care, women's refuges and charities for the homeless and the disabled. She is currently a member of the new National Care Standards Commission. Since her arrival in your Lordships' House, I have come to know her as a sincere, enlightened and hard-working professional. She is a welcome addition to that seat of all truth and wisdom, the Women Peers' Room.
	I should also like to thank my noble friend Lord Harrison for initiating this debate and introducing it with such knowledge and conviction. I enjoyed the speech preceding mine and I look forward to that which is to follow.
	One of my interests is as co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Children. Several noble Lords here today are also connected in significant ways with that group. We shall take note of the issues raised in this debate and continue to press for positive action on the rights of children.
	Today I shall focus on child poverty in the UK and ask the Minister how the many initiatives for alleviating child poverty are linked, how they support each other and how initiatives developed across government will be monitored and evaluated. I shall make reference, if necessarily briefly, to the need to improve education and health for children and young people, which is crucial in tackling poverty. I shall also refer to the need to consult with children and their communities to solve problems.
	In this country we have clearly come a long way in eliminating some of the more extreme horrors of deprivation during the last century and before. Improvements in public health and education are well known. Children are now usually educated beyond the age of nine and by teachers who are literate, which sometimes was not the case in the 1840s. Improvements in living conditions, healthcare and nutrition have been spectacular for many, but not all. However, the negative physical, cognitive, emotional and behavioural outcomes of poverty are still with us.
	The Family Policy Studies Centre's report on children and poverty, published recently, shows how child morbidity and mortality, childhood accidents, child abuse, teenage pregnancy, homelessness, alcohol and drug use, crime, suicide, child labour and mental health can all be related, though not exclusively, to childhood poverty. If we, as a society, want to address those topics, we must primarily address the overarching issue of poverty as well as focusing on the topics themselves.
	In this country we are fortunate to have a number of large and small dynamic voluntary organisations which focus on child welfare. As was mentioned earlier, we also have government strategies and structures, which seek to both initiate and co-ordinate efforts to improve the lot of children. Many Bills before Parliament in this Session will impinge on child poverty. We must take care to relate them to each other, for example, in education, social and health matters. They cannot stand apart.
	A report from Barnardo's asks three questions. What are the human costs in the lives of children and young people growing up in poverty? What are the material costs? What investments might have led to a more positive and hopeful present and future? Examples and projections are given. For example, it is calculated that early investment in the case of one child would have cost £12,782 and that failure to invest has cost £33,266. We cannot, for economic reasons, afford not to take child poverty seriously. Equally, and perhaps more importantly, children now and in the future depend on us to take it seriously.
	I was particularly encouraged by the setting up last year of the Children and Young People's Unit, which will look at how best to improve service provision and work closely with the voluntary, community, faith and statutory sectors to develop effective systems and structures for children. Its strategy document, now out for consultation, contains the following key statement:
	"A substantial body of evidence shows that children and young people who grow up in poverty experience disadvantage and lack of opportunity that affects not only their own current and future experience as adults, but their life chances as children".
	We must seek to improve those life chances. To succeed in doing so, we cannot address problems in isolation. Individuals usually belong to families and communities, which need support. That support must start early—a point raised by my noble friend Lord Desai and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford.
	The Sure Start programme enables disadvantaged families to use family support, health services and education to try to break the cycle of poverty and deprivation. That programme includes antenatal support, which will address poor nutrition, low birth weight and smoking.
	As the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, said, education can provide a way out of poverty. However, it has to start early, working with families to ensure that children are taught literacy, numeracy and social skills from an early age. We still have problems with truancy and exclusion, though the situation has improved. A good example of how schools can support children and their families can be seen in the primary school of which I am a governor. That school is in an inner city deprived area of London. It has worked wonders in developing and maintaining high literacy and numeracy standards, good behaviour and self-esteem among the children—all through a commitment from the headteacher and staff to respect children and their backgrounds and to hold high expectations that children, from whatever background, can improve their life chances. The school is also a recipient of the National Healthy Schools Standard award, which encourages education and health partnerships and links with personal, social and health education and citizenship education.
	As I said, good health in families and children is an essential component to lifting people out of poverty. Strides have been made in that direction through new ways of working for school nurses and health visitors, and through the welfare food scheme and the new national fruit scheme, which will provide every four to six year-old with free fruit every day. The Children's Taskforce seeks to ensure that children's requirements are part of all aspects of the NHS Plan.
	I emphasise the need to involve communities in solving their own problems. That includes consultation with young people. Recent initiatives have highlighted the importance of such consultation. One report, from the National Youth Agency, emphasised the benefit to those concerned. Local authorities can acquire better and more accurate information about needs, barriers and opportunities to access, thereby making them better able to improve services and gain credibility with young people and their communities. Young people have the chance to learn about themselves and their communities; their self-esteem is increased because they are taken seriously; and their ability to influence policy and practice and their capacity in the community are enhanced.
	There is no reason why, with determination and imagination, young people who have suffered—or are suffering—deprivation should not be involved in such consultations. I suggest that if they were, realistic and dynamic interventions would be more likely.
	Involving people in services that affect them is one way of monitoring what works and adapting where necessary. We need to know what works at the individual and community levels. I repeat my question to the Minister: how will services link successfully in order to deliver what families and communities need, and how will we know what works in eliminating poverty?

Lord Adebowale: My Lords, I rise to make my maiden speech on an issue to which I and many other noble Lords attach great importance—child poverty.
	Before continuing, I pause to thank noble Lords for the kindness that they have shown to me in my very short time in the House. I thank my noble friend Lord Listowel in particular, who has helped me through the many strange and interesting facilities of parliamentary language. I also thank the Doorkeepers and staff of the House, who will be glad to know that I have memorised quite well their instructions about finding my way around. "Continue to turn right, then left at the stairs, past Black Rod's office and then straight on till morning". I also take this opportunity to thank my family, friends and colleagues for their patience while I readjust priorities in order to cope with the new responsibilities that being a Peer brings.
	The matter of child poverty is at the heart of the judgment about whether we live in a civilised society. It is only by measuring our success in extending the opportunities that are afforded to many in this House to the poorest in society that we can judge the impact of our endeavours as policy makers and policy scrutinisers.
	I shall restrict my comments to what is happening in this country. The noble Lord, Lord Desai, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford covered the international aspects of child poverty. I believe the Government are right to focus on child poverty, to set clear targets and to show leadership in that area. To do so makes sense in every respect because those who grow up in childhood surrounded by poverty are likely to remain so. The examples and personal observations of my noble friend Lord Listowel and the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth of Breckland, contained much evidence of that. It is clear that much has been done by the Government but it is important that we understand that child poverty is not just a moral issue but a matter of sound economic sense and self-interest. We need to tackle child poverty. Failure to resolve the issues surrounding child poverty will be a failure to provide the necessary skills for this country's economic growth; it will also do irreparable damage to our moral health.
	Child poverty in a broad sense is not just about money; it is also about the provision of decent services and ensuring that there is access to them by those who need them most. It is of great concern to me that for too long we appear to have been suffering from the inverse care law—the more you need, the less you are likely to get.
	Despite the many Herculean efforts of this Government, the vast majority of schools with the poorest performance educationally are in areas where child poverty is greatest. Access to healthcare is poorest where child poverty is most prevalent. Our poorest children are growing up in neighbourhoods with the highest crime.
	It is critical to recognise the scale of the challenge facing us. When I was a teenager, which is not that long ago, one in 10 children grew up in poverty. By the end of the 1990s, the figure was one in three. That has huge implications for the future of society, in that poverty is no longer an isolated experience. It is now increasingly the norm in many parts of the country. For too many members of minority ethnic communities, that is disproportionately the case.
	Those facts present us with a massive challenge for social cohesion and economic prosperity. It is critical that our responses are at the right scale. It is not simply the case that the poor need more resources; adequate scrutiny needs to be given to policies that will affect the poor. The devil is often in the detail. Public services are the route to giving people access to opportunities and skills that are essential to pull themselves out of poverty, not just for a single generation but for many generations.
	My own background has given me many opportunities, both professionally and personally, to witness the way in which public policy has impacted upon the poorest children. That is often unintentional but it happens as a result of a lack of scrutiny, which is focused on the effects of such policies on our poorest citizens and the children of our poorest citizens. It is with that in mind that I draw the attention of noble Lords to an article by Ben Summerskill in last Sunday's Observer, in which he recounted the plight of Mary Smith. She was evicted from her council accommodation as a result of failure to pay rent. That was mainly due to poor housing benefit administration and over-payments. That led Mrs Smith into a situation in which her family was evicted and social services, in doing their duty, placed the children at risk and put them in care. That situation, in the 21st century, was not uncommon in 1966 in "Cathy Come Home".
	This House has a track record of ensuring through its scrutiny of policy that the effects on the poor are taken into account. Mrs Smith and her family tell a tale that can be told by up to 400,000 families in bed and breakfast accommodation. It can be told by thousands of children who will be brought up in neighbourhoods that are bereft of opportunities—and access to opportunities—that are necessary for children not just to survive but to thrive and become economically active and socially independent.
	It is correct that we focus on child poverty with some urgency. We need to focus on the need to ensure that child poverty is not only reduced but eradicated. In so doing, we should improve the public services on which we all rely.

Baroness Thornton: My Lords, it is with huge pleasure that I rise on behalf of the whole House to thank and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Adebowale, on a speech which was characteristically excellent and challenging. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord: well done and welcome.
	The noble Lord should know that his formidable reputation goes before him. He has long been an effective campaigner for the homeless, and Centrepoint—one of the country's leading youth homelessness charities, of which he was chief executive—put the issues of the most disadvantaged young people firmly on the public's and the Government's agenda. His outspoken and passionate campaigning work has probably not always been a comfortable experience for government.
	The noble Lord has also played a leading role in many public initiatives concerning the training and employment of young people; for example, as a member of the Government's New Deal task force. On behalf of your Lordships' House perhaps I may welcome the noble Lord and say how much I look forward to working with him in the years to come.
	I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Harrison for initiating this debate, enhanced, indeed, by the two contributions that we have heard in maiden speeches. Poverty and social exclusion work in combination to damage children's lives. Poverty refers to a lack of material resources, in particular money, while social exclusion means an inability to take part in activities that others take for granted.
	The two work together to damage children. For example, many poor children in the UK live in disadvantaged city neighbourhoods. Minority ethnic communities, lone-parent households and pensioners are often over-represented there. Each area has a different set of problems, but there is often high unemployment, poor health, high crime, run-down housing and inadequate public services. As a result, the people in our society with the fewest resources face some of the most severe problems. That is where many projects, such as those of NCH—the charity with which I am closely associated—work. Like many voluntary and community organisations, they work at the sharp end, fighting the effects of poverty and the effects of poverty on children and their families.
	The fact that the Government have committed themselves to ending child poverty within a generation—by the year 2019—is fantastic. No other policy aim has such capacity to transform children's lives. The Government deserve huge credit for the boldness of their ambition and deserve much support from all sectors of society in pursuing it. They acknowledge, as I believe we must, that this is not something that government alone can achieve.
	Last week the Chancellor published a position statement on ending child poverty. He made the statement at a meeting attended by the leaders of all the faith communities in the UK—unusual and significant in itself—and the charities that have banded together to create the End Child Poverty Coalition. That degree of solidarity is promising. Over the next few years it must be consolidated and extended to other sectors, including business and the public as a whole and, it is hoped, across politics. Certainly, I believe that the goal of ending child poverty should transcend ideology.
	In the meantime, there is much that the Government can do to progress the goal of ending child poverty, and I want to raise several issues. I believe that in the spring Budget the Chancellor should set the rate of the child tax credit sufficiently high—at least as generous as that of the working families' tax credit—so that the worst-off families see a real rise in their living standards. In many ways, this will probably be the single most important financial decision that the Government make in 2002 in that it will have the greatest effect on child poverty.
	I also want to ask the Minister about the minimum wage and the working families' tax credit. Those are complex issues but I want to ask a simple question. What is the current implication for a lone parent of two young children who goes to work? How do the two measures combine to affect that single parent with two young children?
	In recognition of the fact that child poverty is about more than simply money, the Government must also continue their drive to improve public services, in particular those that benefit poor and excluded children. The spending review that reports in summer 2002 offers a further opportunity to do so. Priorities should include the needs of families who require support. For example, perhaps there should be a family support service in every neighbourhood, more resources—staff and services—for children with mental health problems, and more provision to help children in the countryside as well as those in urban areas.
	The isolation of children and families in rural communities presents particular challenges. Last year the Countryside Agency and NCH published a report, Challenging the Rural Idyll. It described graphically the problems of poverty for children in some of the most beautiful parts of our country. I want to refer to one story in that report, which I commend to your Lordships. It concerns a single parent called Eva, who lives in a small market town in Cornwall. She has two children, Julia and James. She is divorced and her family does not live nearby. Julia has epilepsy and is often off school because of her illness. Although Eva wants to work, she cannot find a job in the town in which she lives which will fit around the children's school hours and around her need to look after Julia.
	Eva's home has stunning views over the nearby moors, but that also means that the prevailing wind and rain blow directly into her house. It was her story about holidays that struck me. Of course, we are now approaching Christmas. Those of us who are parents will by buying presents for our children and making plans for our holidays, just as I have done. Eva said:
	"Summer holidays are just an utter and complete nightmare. I feel I'm mean [to my children], I feel terrible. Julia's not too bad, but James has started to notice that he goes without. It's really heartbreaking. They miss out on a lot, just things that other [children] take for granted ... They get to the point that they don't ask anymore. For instance, James never asks for anything for Christmas. I mean most children his age would have a list, they learn quick. James never asks for anything. He just says, 'Get what you can, Mum'. It's things like that make me sad".
	She is right.
	I also ask the Minister to give some thought to the abolition of the severe hardship system for 16 and 17 year-olds who cannot live with their families. I ask them to consider replacing it with a fairer and more adequate safety net, following the example of other countries. Evidence exists to show that the current system leaves some young people at risk of exploitation. That is clearly not acceptable. Sixteen and 17 year-olds are still children in legal and moral terms, and such a step would make a real difference in alleviating their poverty.
	In conclusion, I feel optimistic about the fight to end child poverty. The reason that we must win this battle is not because it is the right thing to do, which clearly it is. Our society needs to be ambitious for all its children. We need all our children to take the opportunities before them and to reach their full potential.

Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, for introducing this debate. We have heard some deeply impressive speeches from people who know a great deal about the subject, not least our two maiden speakers. I believe that they represent a marvellous resource of knowledge and experience which should be powerfully useful in helping to solve the problem of poverty.
	I am a little uncomfortable about the total focus on child poverty. It tends to imply that the issue is simply one of money. Child poverty is a symptom of family poverty. Child poverty which damages the child is a symptom of the disease which is child poverty. Nearly all parents want, if they can, to do their best for their child.
	In a moment, I shall look at some of the aspects of child poverty which have not been discussed today. In doing so, I refer to the excellent brief which many noble Lords will have received from Barnardo's—a powerful and well documented statement about the problem. I thought that its suggested solutions were singularly depressing. All it seemed to be able to suggest was that the Government should dosh out more money. I believe that that solution has been tried before and has not worked. Of course, more money will be needed, but we must ask ourselves what should go with that money.
	In my view a partnership between parents, communities and the Government is required. Although I have great pleasure in seeing the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, at the Dispatch Box, it is an enormous pity that we do not have a Minister for families replying to the debate rather than a Minister who is primarily concerned with doshing out money.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I do not believe that is the verb that I would use when talking about money.

Lord Northbourne: My Lords, my knowledge of the enormous ability of the noble Baroness gives me confidence that she will be able to deal skilfully with all the issues raised in the debate.
	Poverty creates a cycle in that it leads to certain outcomes; those outcomes lead to more poverty; and more poverty leads to the same outcomes in the next generation. We have to address not merely the issue of inadequate funding, but also some of the underlying causes of poverty.
	The Barnardo's study that I mentioned identifies some of the causes and identifies certain categories of the population that are more likely to live in poverty compared with others. One or two of the categories are obvious; for example, families with chronic illness and families with one or more members who are disabled. Perhaps other categories need to be reconsidered: lone parents, families with many siblings, non-white households, care leavers and families without work. I shall consider each of those in turn.
	The reasons why lone parents are poorer are so obvious that I do not believe that it would be sensible to waste time talking about them. The Government want to get lone parents into work. Subject to that applying only to lone parents of children over three or four years of age, they are absolutely right. I wonder whether other matters should be considered as well. I hope I shall not be considered to be politically incorrect or unreasonable, but in this country we have by far the highest percentage of lone parents compared with the whole of Europe. Is it not worth asking ourselves whether there is anything that can be done to help to reduce that percentage and to help more people to live happily in two-parent families? I believe that many things could be done.
	For families with many siblings—it is not a dissimilar problem—there must be opportunities to spend more money and effort on helping—I must be careful how I say this—to persuade parents to plan their families more effectively and rationally without in any way intruding on their right to decide how they want to live.
	I turn to non-white households, which could be an even more politically sensitive issue. Unless we face these real issues honestly, we shall never solve them and if we do not solve them, we shall never achieve the equality of opportunity that we seek for all the citizens of our country. In the case of ethnic-minority employment, trainers and employers have a responsibility, but it may be worth considering and exploring the possibility that certain non-white communities themselves should join together to develop better access to work and employability for their members, with the help of government resources where necessary.
	The most obvious answer in certain communities is English language classes. The inability to speak English can be a cause of unemployability. English language courses were provided and a considerable amount of money was made available in districts like Tower Hamlets, which I know well, for the teaching of English. Unfortunately, the previous government decided to withdraw that grant.
	The case of care leavers is different. That care leavers should have a higher risk of living in poverty when they leave care is nothing short of a scandal. I recognise that children who are taken into care are already damaged children. But as a society, do we have the right to take children into care and not provide them with the care and the healing that they require? Do we have a right to put them into children's homes where fewer than 10 per cent of the staff have any relevant training? As a trustee of the Caldecott Community, I know what a difficult and expensive job it is to heal children who have been damaged while living with their families. If the job is done properly, as a community we would save an enormous amount of money in terms of unemployability, exclusion, juvenile crime, ill health and drug use. In the end it would pay to do the job correctly.
	I shall not speak about unemployment as other noble Lords have spoken on that subject with great wisdom. It is a difficult subject and could be the subject of a debate on its own. The Barnardo's brief does not address some categories: families plagued by alcohol addiction, families with a parent with mental health problems, families in poor housing or in bed-and-breakfast accommodation, and families where parents constantly quarrel. Many noble Lords have referred to those points.
	I do not have time to talk about all those points, but I want to speak about debt. Some people who work with very poor families say that debt is the worst of all the problems that they have to face. Last year more than 2 million people approached the citizens advice bureaux about problems related to debt. For families who live on benefits or on equivalent low incomes, it is just possible to manage if they are very careful until a special demand for expenditure arises. It may be a birth, a marriage, a death, a fire or the need to buy the children new clothes because they have grown. Those matters tend to lead families into debt. Catalogues also are a major source of debt for families as they offer tempting goods on credit.
	I know of a mother whose son came home from school in tears every day because he did not have a Puffa jacket or the trainers that all his fellow pupils had. She was so harrowed by that that she borrowed the money and bought the items but the debt was so oppressive that she prostituted herself until she could pay it off. That story links in with what other noble Lords have said about the problems of young people coping with poverty and prostitution.
	On the street the cost of borrowing is as much as 10 per cent per week—about 500 per cent APR. Again there are things that can be done. The Government are conscious of that problem. There is the problem of poor financial literacy. The Government are considering teaching financial literacy in schools. Do schools actually engage the attention of the target people who need to have better literacy skills? I wonder whether they do.
	Financial services in this country are geared to the needs of the rich and not to the poor. Poor families suffer from a lack of the tools, as well as the skills, with which to manage their money. The Government have announced a bold initiative to address these problems through the Child Trust Fund and the Saving Gateway. I ask the Minister whether these services will be provided through the banks because the banks are very bad at reaching out to "hard to work with" groups.
	Credit unions do a marvellous job. There are 1,000 credit unions in this country and they cater for only 1 per cent of the population. Could not the Government do much more to encourage mutual self help organisations of that kind? The citizens advice bureaux do a marvellous job but they cannot give long term help. At Toynbee Hall we are developing a new service which combines services to meet immediate needs with those to help people to cope better for the future, to develop workable credit strategies and to avoid financial exclusion.
	Finally, at this season, and following other noble Lords, I draw attention to the fact that child poverty is not only about money and services. It is about—many of these other kinds of poverty are not by any means exclusive to poor families in the financial sense of the word—poverty of parental time and attention; poverty of parental guidance and discipline; lack of parental encouragement and example, especially in relation to education; and, simply, parental love. With that thought, I wish your Lordships a very happy Christmas.

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I first thank the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, for the opportunity of this debate today. I compliment him on his very fine speech. I also compliment our two maiden speakers on their equally fine speeches.
	I share with the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, her enthusiasm and delight in the dying art of darning, a skill which I learnt at my grandmother's knee. My late husband would proudly show around the office the darned elbows of his sweaters because to him it proved that he had a loving wife.
	At this time of year, when those of us who have children and grandchildren have particular opportunities to show how much we love and appreciate them, it is appropriate that we consider those who are not so fortunate. We have heard about the scale of the problem from the noble Lord, Lord Adebowale. In 1979, 14 per cent of British children lived below the poverty line. By 1997 the figure was 34 per cent. One of the most surprising and worrying statistics I have read recently is that it has only fallen to 32 per cent under the Government, despite their efforts. If that is all that the Government can achieve when the country is strong economically, what can we expect as the economy slows down?
	The Chancellor claims to have taken 1 million children out of poverty since Labour came to power, but DSS figures show that only 300,000 children have been lifted out of poverty since 1997. Is the 1 million figure just the end of a graph on the Treasury wall and therefore pure speculation? The Government will know that over-claiming the number undermines their considerable credibility in their efforts to reduce child poverty.
	The Government will realise that not everyone who is entitled to a benefit actually receives it. Perhaps that is the explanation for the discrepancy. Does the Minister have any figures on the take-up of benefits for families with children? If it is not 100 per cent, and it probably is not, what are the Government planning to do about that? The benefits system is enormously complicated. Are there plans to simplify it and make benefits more accessible?
	The Government have admittedly reduced the poverty statistics to some extent, but they have done so by top-slicing the poor through tax credits for those who are working. But the very deep levels of poverty lie among the unemployed, those living on benefits and with children to bring up. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Desai, that children are poor because their mothers are poor. Benefits are inadequate and many families have high levels of debt. That is partly because there are not enough grants for essential equipment such as cookers and cots, as we heard from the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. There is, however, the Social Fund. That has survived five years longer than the Conservative government, much to everyone's surprise. It badly needs reviewing. It has several major flaws.
	First, it has an emphasis on loans, the repayment of which can take claimant's income some 15 per cent below the already inadequate official poverty line. Many applicants are refused loans because they are too poor even to afford the repayments. Applicants refused the money to buy a cooker on that basis have been told to buy sandwiches. Is that the way to ensure that children in poor families are properly nourished? I share the concern of the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth of Breckland, about the poor levels of nutrition of children in poorer families. I was pleased to hear from her about the FSA's low income diet initiative. Diseases which were uncommon are becoming common again and children's resistance to everyday childhood illnesses is reduced when they are not fed properly. Perhaps the Minister can tell us more about what the Government are doing about that.
	Secondly, the Social Fund has the problem of annual caps on expenditure. That causes officers sometimes to juggle budgets and produce a postcode lottery unrelated to real need. One of the main principles of social security support should be equal access for those who need it. The structures in place at the moment do not always ensure that.
	Finally, many of those in need are reluctant to approach the fund because they do not believe that they can afford to pay back a loan or because they have a cultural predisposition against borrowing, such as those in the Muslim community.
	We have heard from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford how the faith community and the charity sector sometimes pick up the pieces, but they often want to know that an applicant has been refused by the Social Fund before considering an application for help. Alternatively, a desperate family may be pushed into the private loan sector with all the potential for exploitation from loan sharks that we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne.
	Those who are employed fare a little better. But the need to give tax credits and family income supplements to the low paid shows only that wage structures in this country are profoundly dysfunctional. Large numbers of people work for long hours on wages they cannot live on; and employers get away with it. As the national wealth has risen by 30 per cent over the past 10 years, the gap between rich and poor in this country has widened and is the widest in Europe.
	But I do not propose to emphasise "relative" poverty and the difference between rich and poor, even though that difference is the highest in Europe. My main concern is "absolute" poverty, leaving aside how well other people live. There are too many families in the UK in the new millennium where two or three generations have never worked. They receive inadequate benefits, have a high level of debt and are inadequately trained in how to manage money. As the Government reconsider the 14 to 19 curriculum, I ask the Minister whether there are any plans to encourage schools to spend more time teaching practical family budgeting to young people. After all, everyone needs that skill, whether they earn £5,000 or £50,000 per year.
	The only way to eradicate child poverty is to guarantee a minimum income standard and to ensure security for those who cannot work as well as those who can. Tax credits should be set at a level that guarantees that all children are lifted above poverty levels. Some families need a little more than others; for example, those with disabled children and those with only one parent at home. Sadly, despite recent policy changes, many working families remain close to or below the poverty line; 44 per cent of children in working families remain below median income; and 7 per cent remain below the poverty line. Research has shown that paid work may boost income but there is no guarantee of an escape from poverty.
	However, if parents are to work, there must be more focus on adequate, good quality and affordable child care. Although I welcome the national childcare strategy, there is still a long way to go. The strategy provided 140,000 new places last year, but 66,000 places were lost, so the net gain was only 74,000. That contrasts with the Government's target of 85,000 new places.
	Affordability of childcare is a major issue in parents' decision to go to work, especially if the pay offered is at about the minimum wage. Currently, almost all childcare places for children under three years old are fee paying. According to the Daycare Trust, about 600,000 under-threes are living in poverty in England. Of these, only about 43,000 receive free or subsidised services. That is clearly not enough to allow parents to work and improve their family's income. The Sure Start initiative is excellent, but it still has a long way to go. It plans to reach a third of children under four in poverty by 2004, but I must ask the Minister: what about the other two-thirds?
	The Government should put more resources into their child care strategy. That will empower parents, help children and add to the workforce, so improving the country's economy in the long term. We must take the long view and see good childcare as an investment in the future of both our children and our economy.
	As we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth of Breckland, and the noble Baroness, Lady Massey of Darwen, poverty manifestly affects educational attainment. According to research carried out by the Liberal Democrats, most failing schools have a large number of children receiving free school meals. If we are to provide equality of access to a good education—the key to economic independence—we must address the issue of deprivation.
	I encourage the Government to reconsider the recommendation of the Social Security Select Committee in another place that they should conduct research into the levels of income necessary to avoid poverty and provide ways to achieve that, for both those who can work and those who cannot. Given the political will and a thorough review of the considerable research that already exists, that could be done quickly. Without that work, British children could die in poverty this winter.

Lord Higgins: My Lords, I join all those who have expressed appreciation to the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, for initiating this debate. His opening remarks set the tone for the debate, as they put child poverty in this country in the context of that in the rest of the world. It is important to remember that most other parts of the world are dealing with absolute poverty: in this country, on the whole, we are dealing with relative poverty.
	The noble Lord referred to the United Nations target for aid of 0.7 per cent of gross national product. Alas, that has been an aspiration in politics for as long as I can remember. That must be put in the context of provision made by private assistance to the third world, and, in particular, of debt repayment. Under all parties, we have made considerable progress. However, having at one time been involved in that process, I am always worried about giving debt relief to the third world, because the original money may not have been well spent. We may be giving further relief to a country when we could devote the resources to another country in greater need. None the less, we have made important progress and debt relief is certainly of great value to many third world countries.
	In that context, I shall make one purely personal point. I am worried about how the present situation in Afghanistan may distort the allocation of resources in the aid programme as a whole. Not only is there the military expenditure; there is clearly enormous poverty in Afghanistan. Once the immediate crisis is over, it will be important to ensure that the overall sense of priorities that the departments concerned must establish are not distorted.
	This debate has been remarkable for two maiden speeches. The noble Baroness, Lady Howarth of Breckland, brings to the House great experience as chief executive of Childline and made many important points. She will present something of a problem for those of us on the Front Bench, because I began to make a note of each of her points and rapidly ran out of paper. Despite having covered so many points, she in no way dealt with them superficially. She made an important contribution to the debate.
	Similarly, the noble Lord, Lord Adebowale, comes with great experience from Centrepoint, and so on, and made several important points, stressing that it makes economic sense and is in our self-interest to seek to solve the problem of child poverty. He made another important point by arguing that resources often go not to the areas most in need but to those that are relatively well off. Consequently, we often find that educational and sports facilities, and so on, are least good in the most deprived areas. He brings great experience of such issues and we look forward to hearing both from him and from the noble Baroness on many future occasions.
	Many of the speeches that we have heard derive from front-line experience of dealing with the problem. I should like to make some specific points. Yesterday, speaking before me, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, anticipated what I was going to say and produced some arguments that I had not even thought of. Perhaps I may do the same, as the Minister will no doubt refer to the Government's record on the matter.
	In a speech on 25th September, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said:
	"With already 1.2 million children lifted out of poverty, we can aim higher. We will seek a simple and fundamental mandate to eradicate child poverty in our generation and give every child the best possible start in life."
	We all share that aspiration, although his statement was not correct. It was not the case that the Government had already lifted 1.2 million children out of poverty; that was what they anticipated would happen because of measures announced by the Chancellor.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I shall expand on this point when I wind up the debate, but if I may, I shall put on record that that is not a correct reading of what my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said. It is important to correct that misapprehension.

Lord Higgins: My Lords, I was quoting from the party press release; it may well not be accurate.
	It is important to establish the facts about that claim. Strangely, the figure is derived from two entirely separate sources: first, a study by POLIMOD at the University of Cambridge; secondly, a separate government study. Both studies produced the figure of 1.2 million. That is surprising, because they deal differently with housing benefit and the first study makes an allowance for take-up, whereas the government study assumes 100 per cent take-up. Yet both produce the figure of 1.2 million.
	When I used to mark exam papers, I found that if two people got the right answer they were probably both right, but if two of them got the wrong answer one of them was cribbing. Perhaps the noble Baroness can explain how that strange situation arose. Neither the Child Poverty Action Group nor Barnardo's thinks that the Government's claim is borne out by the facts. That is worrying because we would all like to see that kind of performance.
	Part of the problem relates to the complexity of the system when people make claims, as referred to in the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth of Breckland. Undoubtedly, take-up is most important and perhaps the Minister will comment on that.
	There are many different measures of poverty and today I shall not bore your Lordships by describing all the alternatives. Some are more quantitive than others. However, I want to make an important point. The measures most usually quoted—certainly those relating to the issue I have just discussed—depend on a certain level above the mean or the median income level and the extent to which children in families, for example, fall below the particular average. We must recognise that that target is constantly moving. The average constantly rises as incomes generally rise. Therefore, to some extent, we are talking not about poverty but about equality.
	One of the stranger events of recent years is that, far from decreasing, the disparity between the rich and the poor families with children seems to have widened. There appears to be a conflict of view between the Prime Minister and the present Secretary of State for Work and Pensions as to whether that widening is to be regarded as disadvantageous. It would be helpful to have the Minister's comments.
	I want to raise another important issue. Among all the measures about which we hear, little attention is paid to secondary poverty. That poverty arises not necessarily from an absolute or relative level of income but from the way in which those receiving the assistance operate. The noble Baroness, Lady Massey of Darwen, referred to smoking. Research undertaken by the Policy Studies Institute shows that an incredibly depressing amount of money is being spent on tobacco and cigarettes by low income families, including those with children. That subject needs examination but it is often neglected.
	Finally, I join the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, in her comments about the Social Fund. I am sure that the Minister will point out that that was introduced by a Conservative government and has various deficiencies. I say merely that as a constituency Member of Parliament I entirely agree that the system worked badly. Indeed, my majority fell massively to about 18,500! Be that as it may, there are real concerns about the Social Fund. Barnardo's, which has already been quoted, stresses that too many families across the country in receipt of income support are having to pay back money. Furthermore, across the services, the majority of hard-pressed families are struggling to pay Social Fund loans. That means that they are living £10 or more below the rock-bottom poverty line.
	The Social Security Select Committee in another place similarly expressed concern about the way in which the Social Fund system is working against the Government's key aim of reducing poverty. Its inquiries show that the discretionary fund in its present form is adding to poverty and the social exclusion of families and children by, in many cases, denying them access to the basic necessities and increasing their indebtedness.
	That brings together the two themes; the international and the national. Indebtedness is a problem in the third world. As has rightly been pointed out, it is equally a problem in this country among the poor, in particular the poor with children. It would be helpful if in the generally constructive approach to the problem we looked at the interest rates which are being paid by many such families. The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, commented on that matter.
	The debate has been interesting and it could not have been better informed. All noble Lords who have spoken have great experience in the area and it is with considerable diffidence that I congratulate them. The debate has been most helpful and we look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Harrison not only on his success in the ballot today but on his powerful opening speech. The debate was wonderfully enhanced by the magnificent maiden speeches of the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth of Breckland, and the noble Lord, Lord Adebowale.
	I share my noble friend's commitment to the issue. I remember—I was young at the time—George Brown being asked as an MP why he was a socialist. He said that in the 1930s when he was travelling back to London from North Wales he stopped at a roadside cafe. A young couple, who were trying to get to London to find work, came in and changed the baby's nappy—and they changed the nappy from one set of newspapers to another. He said that that was why he was a socialist.
	As your Lordships have identified, that was absolute poverty. In the first decade of this millennium we are talking about child poverty, but it is a relative poverty. The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, was right in saying that because earnings rise incomes grow and so it is that much harder for those who are not in work to keep pace or to catch up. The perversity of that is that one way of overcoming relative poverty is to see the national wealth shrink and unemployment grow. As a result, more incomes would fall towards the mean. I would not wish to see that happen, but none the less it would explain the problem when we are talking about the concepts of relative poverty.
	It has been made clear in our debate that if we ask who are the poor in our society the answer is not pensioners—although some undoubtedly are poor—and it is not disabled people—although some undoubtedly are poor. The answer is children. The face of poverty in our society today is the face of a child.
	As many noble Lords said, it matters because whereas in 1979 2 million children were living in low income families, by 1997 that figure had risen to 4 million. One child in three is growing up in a low-income family. If we had done nothing, another generation would have inherited that poverty and deprivation.
	The recently published report, Outcomes for Children, informs us what the risks may be. Children who grow up in poverty are less likely to do well at school; they have fewer qualifications; they leave school sooner; and, as the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, said, they are likely to truant and they may well run away. In later life, such children are three times more likely to be unemployed or in low-paid work; they are more likely to suffer ill health; and they are more likely to retire without an adequate income. As the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, so movingly said, at worst, that may lead to violence, conflict and even abuse. It may lead to a deprivation and a degradation which may be passed on to their children in turn. It is a deformed dowry of experience.
	The noble Baroness was right in saying that we need to value all the social workers who may make all the difference. That is why the Government are spending £1.5 million extra on advertising to expand the number of those in social work. It is also why, incidentally, Quality Protects is so important to ensure that those children who are the most vulnerable and damaged are given the most help possible to make a successful transition to independence and adult life. The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, made that point.
	I am sure that I shall be supported by my noble friend Lady Massey in saying on behalf of social workers that I sometimes resent the extent to which they are scapegoated for the failing in today's parenting society. They are pivotal figures and most of them do a heroic and noble job. Without their work, so many other children would be having even more deprived and degraded lives.
	Who are these children? The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, identified most of the children at risk. We know that four groups of children are especially likely to be poor. Many of the poorest will be the children of lone parents who are two-and-a-half times more likely to suffer prolonged poverty than are other children. And prolonged poverty is the poverty which scars.
	They are particularly likely to be poor for two reasons. First, usually their mothers—the parent with care—are unlikely to be in work, and hence our welfare to work strategy. They are also likely to be poor because they are in a fractured family and thus unlikely to be receiving child support, and hence our child support reforms. Those two factors are connected. Women on income support who receive maintenance are twice as likely then to move into work. Child maintenance serves as a form of privatised family credit to springboard those families out of poverty. That is why I believe that our child support reforms are so important because they will benefit a further 1 million children.
	The second group of children likely to experience poverty are those in larger families. In the period 1991-97, one-third of children in large families, compared with 15 per cent of children in smaller families, were classified as having persistently low incomes. Often that group overlaps with another; namely, ethnic minority families. Again, that problem was identified by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. Although Britain is a multi-racial society, we know that some of our ethnic communities are far more likely than others to suffer severe disadvantage. In 1996-97, for example, seven out of 10 families with a Pakistani or Bangladeshi head were in the poorest fifth of income distribution. Proportionately, they should have comprised two in 10 families, but in fact the figure was seven in 10. The result of that is clear and noble Lords have already pointed out that it is parental poverty which produces child poverty. Whereas 30 per cent of white children live in poverty, 60 per cent of Pakistani/Bangladeshi children do so.
	I turn to the final group, about which I am slightly surprised not to have heard mention during the debate. I refer here to families where either an adult or a child suffers from a disability or a long-term illness. A disabled child, however much richness it brings to family life, at the same time creates financially a disabled family. Whereas 28 per cent of all children are in the bottom quintile of incomes, that percentage rises to 44 per cent of children where either they or their parents are disabled.
	What are we doing about the problem? We are determined to reverse the growth of the numbers of children living in poverty through our policies to tackle worklessness, to increase financial support and to improve public services in the form of the environment and in particular education services for such children. The noble Lord, Lord Adebowale, emphasised that latter point.
	The best route—probably the only long-term and sustainable route out of poverty—is work. In 1979, 10 per cent of children lived in workless households. In 1997, that figure has risen to almost 20 per cent. At the same time, the number of children living in poverty had tripled. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, asked about the statistics in play—which is why earlier I intervened in the debate.
	Nowadays, some 300,000 children are in poverty than was the case when the Government took office. But there would have been 1.2 million more children in poverty had the policies we inherited in 1997 continued. That is why the two statistics vary. It is important to point that out; otherwise there appears to be a crossing of wires.
	We are providing help and advice to families wishing to return to work through programmes like the New Deal. At the core of that scheme is the personal adviser, the work-focused interview and Jobcentre Plus. I too respect the right of parents, in particular those with young children, to reach a decision about what is best for their child as regards whether they do or do not move into work. However, it is interesting to note that half of the lone parents coming on to the New Deal have children under the age of five. Why are they doing that? They are the parents who were most recently in work and they want to return to work. That is their choice.
	One lone parent of a young child told me, "I don't want my child growing up thinking that grown-ups do not work". Another lone parent of one child of two years and another of five years said that, "Work for me is not the second-best way of supporting and looking after my children; it is the best way I have of being a parent". That is why the strategies that we have put in place are so important.
	However, we must also ensure that when parents do move into work, that work must pay. As a result of the working families' tax credit and our proposals for the new integrated child credit which I shall have the pleasure of bringing before the House in a few months' time, I believe that we shall be able to achieve what was called for by my noble friend Lord Desai; that is, to introduce effectively a portable citizen's income for children. The statistics are important here.
	My noble friend Lady Thornton pressed me on the implications of the working families' tax credit for children living in poverty. We know that what matters is the entry wage, because it is that which brings a lone parent into work. We know also that most lone parents work part-time, on average between 16 and 22 to 24 hours per week. Quite rightly, those parents need to balance childcare against the hours of work. In other words, unlike most men, lone parents cannot extend their incomes by working longer hours to compensate. For someone working for only 16 hours per week and receiving the minimum wage of £4.10 an hour, that hourly pay is raised by working families' tax credit to £11 per hour. Adding in child benefit and taking off average housing costs results in net pay for working 16 hours per week of a sum in the order of £10 per hour. The result of our interventions means that such a parent can more than double her hourly rate of pay. That is before child maintenance is added, which on average is worth £35 per week.
	Obviously for someone in full-time work—over 30 to 35 hours per week—there is far less need for working families' tax credit and therefore that help tapers out. But whereas the minimum income for a family working part-time would be in the order of £160 per week, for a family working full-time they would have at least £202 per week before any question of maintenance would come into play.

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, does the Minister agree that she has just cited a perfect example of the complexity of the benefits system? Would not a minimum income be a great deal simpler?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, we have put in place the minimum wage. That is what people can earn. What I seek to suggest is that because a minimum wage applies to everyone, it can take no account of personal circumstances because that wage would be paid to a single person of 25, as it would to the 35 year-old lone parent caring for two or three children, as well as it would to the Bangladeshi family who may have six children. The point of working families' tax credit is that it builds on the minimum wage and adds to that an income which is tailored to a family's particular needs, thus ensuring that work pays in comparison with the benefits entitlement—also tailored to individual need—that they would otherwise receive. I hope that, as a result of that explanation, the noble Baroness will endorse the policies and strategies that the Government are seeking to achieve.
	Over the past few years I think that we have acted appropriately. I do not suggest that the schemes are not without complexity. Social security is a complicated matter. But the structure is simple and I believe that we are helping to take children and their families out of poverty. For example, in cash terms since 1997, we have doubled the allowance on income support for children under the age of 11. By 2003, we will have virtually doubled the additional premia for a disabled child in a household on income support, in cash terms.
	Furthermore, we have delivered record increases in child benefit. We have increased the Sure Start maternity grant from £100 when we inherited the scheme to £500 next April. That enormous increase, together with the payment of the child tax credit, may go some way to meet what the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, was calling for; namely, extra support for parents during their child's early years.
	The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, raised the issue of debt and queried whether the social fund was adequate to meet the debt burden faced by families living in poverty. I absolutely agree that debt is a major problem for such families. However, I think that noble Lords were unjust in their approach to the purpose of the social fund. The interest-free budgetary loans of the social fund have been designed to even out lumpy expenditure and to do so in ways that are interest-free, compared with the problems—rightly identified by the noble Baroness—of the pawn shop, loan sharks, brokers and the like. Of course we support the credit unions, but experience has demonstrated that they work only when the majority of those belonging to the credit union are employed and thus have moneys available to make savings. The problems of budgeting for loans are largely borne by those living on benefits. Once people have been in work for a time, they begin to accrue sufficient income to meet their debt problems.
	My noble friend Lady Thornton asked about the situation in regard to 16 to 17 year-olds. We want and expect children of 16 and 17 to be in work, education or training, but 36,000 are on income support and JSA, many of whom would otherwise experience severe hardship. We are not expecting to return to the days when such children were treated as adults and given benefit. We believe that they are entitled to the protection, support and opportunities of children— and that means help into work and, above all, help into education and training.
	I am sorry to talk about money, benefit levels and so on, but poverty is about money and the lack of it. But, as many noble Lords—particularly the noble Lord, Lord Adebowale—have said, it is not only about income; it is about public services, education, health and poor housing. I am delighted that the Rowntree report, as the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, acknowledged, identified that we have moved forward on almost all of these criteria.
	Initiatives such as Sure Start, the Children's Fund and the Healthy Schools programme—which was mentioned by my noble friend Lady Massey and covers a range of subjects from apples to speech therapy—are only three in a number of programmes that we have introduced to ensure that children have the best start in life and to break the cycle of deprivation between generations.
	My noble friend asked me how, despite that, we will co-ordinate initiatives. We have a new Cabinet Committee for children and young people, chaired by the Chancellor of the Exchequer; we have a new children and young persons unit, which has an advisory forum of young people to feed into and enrich its proceedings; and we have a series of interlocking sub-committees on children. I serve on a children and young persons at risk committee; on the Sure Start advisory committee; on the childcare review committee; and on the family and communities Committee. I have, obviously, a particular concern for child poverty and the parents affected by it.
	I think, I hope, I believe, I trust that we will—I know that we must—deliver on child poverty. But before I finish, I should like to touch on our obligations to the international community, so movingly spoken to by my noble friend Lord Harrison and other noble Lords. One in five of the world's population lives on less than one US dollar per day. Child poverty causes appalling suffering and jeopardises well being. Poverty reduction through sustainable development and the improved welfare of people cannot be achieved without bringing children out of deprivation.
	The best way of tackling child poverty is to address the causes of community poverty. Each year, more than 10 million children still die before the age of five, with 95 per cent of those deaths occurring in developing countries. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford raised this point and particularly mentioned the children orphaned by AIDS. We have made significant progress in establishing the global fund to fight AIDS, TB and malaria, which was announced at the G8 meeting in Genoa in July 2001 and which will be up and running in the new year. The UK has pledged more than 200 million US dollars and the pledges overall amount already to more than 1 billion US dollars, which I hope will go some way to addressing the problems identified.
	We must protect the health of women; we must intervene on children's education; we must seek to challenge the concept of child labour which, at its worst and in its most abusive forms, puts children in physical and moral danger.
	We know that children are terribly affected by conflict, which perpetuates poverty and reverses development. Of the 34 countries farthest from meeting the poverty eradication targets, 20 are in the midst of armed conflict or have only recently emerged from it. Ethnic and intra-community violence often leads to the destruction of families and brings a heavy burden of suffering on women and children. We are seeking to help displaced children and to reduce community conflict.
	Next year, at the postponed United Nations Special Session on Children, the world will have the opportunity to renew and strengthen the commitment it made to children at the 1990 World Summit for Children. We expect a full range of measures to be embraced, including children's rights to health and education, and to protection from conflict, exploitation and mistreatment.
	The United Kingdom will wholeheartedly join this global commitment to the children of the world. Children anywhere and everywhere, at home and elsewhere, deserve no less.

Lord Harrison: My Lords, the yarns spun by the noble Baronesses, Lady Howarth and Lady Walmsley, about being down at heel and put out at the elbow, made for a darn good speech. It has been a darn good debate this afternoon. I thank all noble Lords who have spoken—including the usual suspects and the two new prospects—for their contributions. I congratulate the Minister, who will henceforth be known as "The Minister for doshing out money". In the spirit of what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford said about the proximity of Christmas, perhaps I may, in offering season's greetings to the whole House, beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Kabul: International Security Assistance Force

Lord Bach: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence. The Statement is as follows:
	"Mr Speaker, the recent Bonn agreement on the future governance of Afghanistan called for the deployment of an international force to Afghanistan to assist the new Afghan interim authority, which formally takes office on Saturday, 22nd December, with the provision of security and stability for Kabul. Two days ago my right honourable friend the Prime Minister confirmed that the United Kingdom was willing in principle to lead such a force.
	"I can now confirm that the United Kingdom is formally prepared to take on the leadership of an International Security Assistance Force for a limited period of three months. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has today written to the Secretary-General of the United Nations to inform him of our decision.
	"Our decision follows further discussions with the United States, with the other nations that have indicated that they may be willing to contribute troops to the force, with the United Nations, and with the designated leaders of the interim authority in Afghanistan.
	"There are a number of issues still to be finalised. We have not yet settled every detail about this force. But it is right that I should inform the House today, in particular about the letter to the UN Secretary-General. And today is the last opportunity for me to bring this before the House before the Christmas Recess.
	"As the Prime Minister emphasised, the situation in Afghanistan remains fragile. The International Security Assistance Force is a vital part of the international community's efforts to assist the Afghan people in this early and difficult period of the reconstruction of their country.
	"A deployment of this kind, involving troops, equipment and logistical support from several nations, is a complex undertaking. We have no illusions about Afghanistan—deploying forces there inevitably involves an element of risk. It is a challenging, difficult and sometimes dangerous environment.
	"The force will be charged with assisting the Afghan interim authority in the maintenance of security in Kabul and its surrounding area. Responsibility for security will remain with the interim authority. Potential tasks could, however, include liaison with and advice and support to the interim authority as well as the UN on security issues, together with scoping future requirements for help in establishing and training the new Afghan security forces.
	"The United Kingdom will provide the force commander and his headquarters. The force commander will be Major-General John McColl, who is currently serving as the General Officer Commanding 3(UK)Division based at Bulford. General McColl, as the House will be aware, led last weekend's reconnaissance and liaison team to Kabul. The force headquarters will also be drawn from 3 Division, as will some of its main force and many of its essential support troops. Other elements will be drawn from the headquarters of 16 Air Assault Brigade and key enablers and units that are maintained at very high readiness, including elements of 40 Commando Royal Marines and the Second Battalion, the Parachute Regiment.
	"Indicative planning to date suggests that the United Kingdom's contribution will be in the region of 1,500 troops, although the actual figure will depend on the contributions made by other nations. This will be an international force. It is too soon to say exactly how many troops it will include, or the nations from which they will come. But the force will number 3,000 to 5,000 and will include contributions from the armed forces of several nations.
	"Sixteen nations were represented at last Friday's conference for potential troop contributors. Twenty-one nations are represented at today's follow-on conference at the Permanent Joint Headquarters in Northwood. We expect to establish the detailed force composition over the next few days.
	"The United States has indicated that it fully supports the deployment of the International Security Assistance Force. The United States will provide essential enabling support to deploy and sustain the force. That is a vital and a considerable task.
	"The House will wish to know the arrangements for command and control of the International Security Assistance Force. The force will have a particular mission, distinct from Operation Enduring Freedom. If the United Kingdom's offer to be lead nation is accepted, the United Kingdom will exercise command of the International Security Assistance Force. As I have said, General McColl will be the force commander. The force will work very closely with the United States, as set out in the letter from the Foreign Secretary to the UN Secretary-General—a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House.
	"I would like to place on record our gratitude to the United States. The United States has led the global coalition's offensive operations against international terrorism with great success. Their generosity in also finding the capacity to support the International Security Assistance Force, by providing enabling capabilities that no other country can match, should be recognised and applauded.
	"I would also like to take this opportunity to record our appreciation of all the nations which have indicated that they are willing to provide troops for the International Security Assistance Force.
	"The International Security Assistance Force is a reflection of the strong international support for the reconstruction of Afghanistan. It will go to Kabul with the backing of the wider international community. Work is under way in New York to draw up a United Nations Security Council Resolution to authorise the deployment under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. We anticipate that it will be agreed within the next few days.
	"The House will have a number of proper questions about issues that have yet to be resolved. We have not yet finalised all of the details about the force. There are still major questions, both about its size and composition—including which nations will contribute. We hope to refine the answers to these questions over the coming days.
	"We also need to agree with the Afghan authorities the precise tasks that the force will undertake and the modalities of its deployment. Let me be clear: the international community is sending the force to assist the Afghans, not to interfere in their affairs. Discussions with designated members of the Interim Authority, including its chairman, Defence, Interior and Foreign Ministers, indicate that they welcome our intention to lead the ISAF.
	"General McColl's reconnaissance and liaison team met leading designated members of the Interim Authority to discuss how the force could best assist the Afghans and how it should relate to the Interim Authority. Further discussions are required and General McColl will be returning to Kabul later this week. These tasks will need to be encapsulated in a detailed military technical agreement, which we anticipate finalising with the Interim Authority as soon as possible after it is established. Once this agreement and the authorising UN Security Council Resolution are in place, the International Security Assistance Force will be able to deploy in full.
	"Needless to say, British forces deploying to Afghanistan will be properly equipped for the tasks that they will undertake and they will be provided with robust rules of engagement.
	"The United Kingdom has been invited to take on lead nation status because we and others believe that our forces have the capability and experience required to undertake this operation. We have the ability to get a force in and up and running very quickly. It is, therefore, right that we take on this responsibility, when so much depends on the early success of the political process that the force will support.
	"I am absolutely satisfied that this operation is within our capacity. Our commitment is limited in numbers—up to 1,500 troops—and duration, up to three months. After three months, we will hand over lead nation status to one of our partners. There have already been indications that others may be willing to take this on.
	"General McColl and his immediate team will be returning to Kabul later this week to continue detailed negotiations with the Afghan authorities on the terms of a detailed military technical agreement. They will also be present for the inauguration of the Interim Authority on 22nd December. Troops from 40 Commando Royal Marines will be available to support General McColl and, if required, the Interim Authority. A company of Marines is being sent this week to bolster the existing presence at Bagram. They will also enable the International Security Assistance Force, once it is formed, to deploy more quickly.
	"The deployment of the main elements of the ISAF will be dependent on the outcome of discussions on the military technical agreement and the complexity of the task. Given the circumstances, the main body will not begin to deploy before 28th December at the earliest. It will be a matter of weeks before a substantial force can be deployed.
	"I am very conscious that our decision to lead this force will mean that some of our troops will not be able to spend Christmas with their families. Some of our troops have been at Bagram for some time. Separation from friends and family is never easy, least of all at this time of year. Our troops will, however, deploy to Afghanistan knowing that they will be carrying out a vital and a worthwhile task, contributing to restoring peace and stability to a country that has been torn apart by strife and international terrorism.
	"In offering to be the lead nation for the ISAF and to deploy British troops to Afghanistan, we are aware that we have taken on significant responsibilities. The war there is being won; we must now secure the peace. The United Kingdom is proud to be able to play an important role in this. Mr. Speaker, I am confident that we will".
	My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

Lord Vivian: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. Perhaps I may say from the outset that we shall support Her Majesty's Government on whatever decision is taken about the deployment of troops to the International Security Assistance Force for Afghanistan.
	However, your Lordships may recall that in the excellent debate last Monday I sounded words of caution about British military involvement in any multinational peacekeeping force, as did four former Chiefs of Defence Staff and one former Secretary of State for Defence.
	We on these Benches support the case for Al'Qaeda to be located and destroyed wherever it is; but if we had to commit many more troops, significant overstretch would occur. The Army is now at full stretch, and if this commitment should last for an indefinite period and replacements are required, and if the Army should be required to be deployed to Somalia or other areas in support of the destruction of Al'Qaeda, it would become significantly overstretched.
	The Statement refers to a commitment of up to three months. How do we know that it will be for only up to three months? Who has agreed to replace us? This must be made known as soon as possible, as whoever it is should start assembling the replacement force now and start immediate training in the likely tasks once they are known. The Secretary-General of the United Nations must bring pressure to bear to nominate the replacement lead nation now.
	I should like to ask why we should commit our troops to peacekeeping operations when their many military skills may be needed in further fighting. Many other nations can carry out peace-keeping duties, leaving our troops available for more serious fighting operations.
	Before I ask the Minister some questions that arise from the Statement, I stress that if we are to commit troops to the operation, it is essential that they are able to meet the unexpected. It is therefore vital that the force is robust, with a secure airhead, protected air corridors and a secure forward operating base. It is essential that there are enough troops to deal with the unexpected and that reserves are on immediate call to reinforce the situation when required.
	What is the exact mission for the British troops and the security force? There is mention of potential tasks of liaison and of advice and support on security issues to the interim authority, but the fact that the precise tasks to be undertaken by the force that we are about to commit still have to be agreed with the interim authority is hardly acceptable. They must be clarified in a mission statement.
	There still do not seem to be answers to some of the questions that I raised in the House on Monday evening, which I shall repeat. We have not been given a reason why a Muslim force could not take the lead role and assume command of ISAF. What are the reasons for that not happening? What are the reasons for France and Germany not leading ISAF if a Muslim force is not acceptable to Afghanistan? Will the United States remain in overall command? Will they continue to provide the necessary air superiority for complete air cover?
	The UK will be in command of ISAF, but to whom will the force under the command of Major-General McColl report? In other words, who and where is the superior headquarters? What will be the exact chain of command? The Statement refers to US essential enabling support to deploy and sustain the force. Perhaps the Minister can expand on that and clarify the command situation.
	Who will provide the heavy airlift for the insertion and extraction of the force? What other support will the United States provide? What will be the precise objectives of the force? They have not yet been mentioned.
	Is the Minister aware that in such situations it is impossible to know when we will be able to withdraw and hand over the commitment? Only time will tell. The operation is totally different from those in the Balkans, with extremely long lines of communication and many difficulties. The unexpected may well come about, bringing about changes and sucking in many more troops.
	I am grateful to the Minister for his Statement and look forward to his reply. I repeat again that my party supports Her Majesty's Government on the deployment of troops to Afghanistan.

Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I echo the thanks to the Minister for repeating the Statement. During the debate on Monday he did not give any details, but told us that if we waited there would probably be some movement before the end of the week. It is gratifying that he has come forward with a Statement before the House rises.
	The Statement sets out the movement of troops. That fits well with the remit set out in Annex 1 of the Bonn agreement. It is worth noting, as the noble Lord, Lord Vivian, said, that the body will not have a peacekeeping role. Unless I have misunderstood the remit of the force, it will be there to support the civil authority, which we hope will assume power on 22nd December.
	I am not going to ask 101 questions this afternoon, because the situation is very fluid. I said the same on Monday, because we were awaiting the assessment of Major-General McColl. Asking too many questions now might lead to no answers being given.
	We are concerned that so far, although the Bonn agreement has been signed, there does not seem to be much overt support for it on the ground from many of the leaders of the different factions. Although I believe that such overt support will be forthcoming, a good deal of political persuasion will be required.
	The Minister mentioned that there would be 1,500 troops on the ground. I have two questions about that. First, he mentioned that further troops would be needed for 22nd December. Will they have enough time to be on the ground by then? If they are not on the ground then, will the troops that we already have there be sufficient for the job of the handover? What is envisaged for the handover? Secondly, although 1,500 troops are envisaged, that number could be greatly reduced if other nations are prepared to take the strain. My party and most others in the House feel some pride in the fact that other nations are prepared to accept our expertise in the lead role, but if others also take the strain, will the troops that we put on the ground be made up less of infantry and more of headquarters staff and logistics staff such as engineers?
	The Minister mentioned that Christmas is fast approaching. Although we wholeheartedly support the movement of troops, it is worth mentioning that we very much echo his sentiments that at this time of year our thoughts go to the families of those troops who are being sent out to what is still quite a dangerous situation.

Lord Bach: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their general support on behalf of their parties for the action that the Government are taking. That is much appreciated. It has been present from the beginning of the conflict and I have no doubt that it will last as long as the conflict lasts.
	My second point before I deal with the questions is that ideally the Statement would not have been made today, but, as this is the last sitting day of another place before Christmas, the choice was between waiting until everything was absolutely in order—which would have meant recalling Parliament to make the Statement—or making the Statement today. A Statement was necessary, because both Houses want to know what is going on before they break up for the Christmas Recess. I apologise in advance if I cannot give as many answers as I would like.
	The noble Lord, Lord Vivian, asked about the exact purpose of the mission. The tasks that will be required will no doubt emerge as a consequence of the military technical agreement that will be negotiated and announced on or just after Saturday, when the interim authority comes into being. We have said as much as we can about the sort of jobs that will be required of the international force.
	Why us? I hope that the Statement makes that plain. We are committed to helping the Afghan interim authority, which is so important if we are to achieve the wider objective of breaking the link between Afghanistan and terror. We have highly capable forces with experience in rapid expeditionary deployment. Our task will be to get ISAF in and running. We will then hand over leadership to one of our partners.
	As for command and control, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Vivian, to look at the letter—there is a copy in the Library, and I know that he has a copy—from the Foreign Secretary to the United Nations Secretary-General. The letter deals with the particular point as best we can at the moment, and it makes clear what the command and control structure will be.
	The noble Lord's last question was on how the force would get in and then get out. Part of the American support will be an overall operational interest in how we get in and get out. However, we shall have to wait a few days for the details of the individual countries that will be involved.
	The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, asked about Afghan support. As he knows, deployment of an ISAF is included in the Bonn agreement, which was reached by all the Afghan parties and is at the root of the force. The deployment will of course be made with the agreement of the Interim Authority. As I said, we shall finalise the details of our agreement with the authority later this week. However, in recent discussions, Hamid Karzai has welcomed both the United Kingdom's help in recent months and the deployment of an ISAF. He noted that the force symbolises the international community's determination to help Afghanistan and gives the Afghan people hope for the future.
	I very much appreciate the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, on our troops spending Christmas away from home. The comments will be appreciated by our troops and are a view shared on all sides of the House.
	The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, also asked about our 1,500 troops, and particularly about the ones we want to be there by 22nd December, which is the day on which the Interim Authority effectively comes into being. Those troops are not part of the ISAF; I have made it clear that the ISAF members would not begin to be in place until 28th December at the earliest. However, those troops will be there by 22nd December to assist in the inauguration which is a very important event for the new administration.
	As I said, a large number of other nations want to play a part, and their very role is being discussed in today's Northwood conference to which I referred in my Statement.
	Before I sit down, I should also like to echo the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, that we should be very proud as a country that we are taking on this role. I shall leave it there for now.

Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, I welcome the Minister's Statement. As it acknowledges that there is still much to be settled, I think that it would be quite inappropriate to bombard the Minister now with a series of questions that may be difficult to answer. It is, however, perhaps worth touching on two points.
	First, although the involvement of the United States is very welcome, the command arrangements between the United States and ISAF need most careful consideration and to be formalised. The Foreign Secretary's letter to Kofi Annan states that
	"the United States Central Command will have authority over the International Security Assistance Force".
	Could the Minister expand on that rather short description of command and control?
	Secondly, we must welcome the fact that our service men will be given robust rules of engagement in this area. However, it is also very important that all other forces operating in ISAF work with similar rules of engagement. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure the House that the rules of engagement agreed for United Kingdom forces will be applied throughout ISAF.

Lord Bach: My Lords, I thank the noble and gallant Lord for his comments; his support is very welcome indeed. On command and control, the passage in the letter from the Foreign Secretary to which he referred continues:
	"the United States Central Command will have authority over the International Security Assistance Force to deconflict International Security Assistance Force and Operation Enduring Freedom activities and to ensure that International Security Assistance Force activities do not interfere with the successful completion of Operation Enduring Freedom."
	Today, I cannot go further than that particular sentence.
	The noble and gallant Lord's comments on the rules of engagement were very welcome. He has also not even asked what the rules of engagement will be, as he knows that such matters are not discussed in public. He can, however, be assured that the rules of engagement affecting British troops will also affect troops from other countries.

Lord Judd: My Lords, will my noble friend the Minister accept that many of us on these Benches welcome the clarity and purpose of his Statement? Does he also accept that we send our best wishes to everyone involved in this difficult task and that, while we think of service men separated from their families, like others, we also think very much of wives and families separated from their husbands and fathers at such a time?
	I ask my noble friend to comment on a few matters. First, I think that we all take heart from the emphasis that he placed on the very specific way in which the Government and the Prime Minister are ensuring that the action is being taken with UN authorisation.
	Secondly, does my noble friend accept that many of us take great pride in the fact that British armed services are acquiring such an outstanding international reputation for such work? It is something of which we can all be proud.
	Thirdly, does my noble friend accept that, as the stated objective of our activities has been a humanitarian victory as well as a military victory, it is extremely important that there should be close co-ordination between the work of this force and the work of the humanitarian agencies, whose leaders have welcomed the proposal for such a force? Will he assure us that arrangements will be put in place to ensure that that co-operation and co-ordination are all that they might be?

Lord Bach: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his support. He speaks as a distinguished Peer in two spheres: as a former Defence Minister, and in the role that he has played in humanitarian organisations. I am therefore particularly grateful for his comments.
	The United Nations' role is very important in this whole enterprise. Indeed, my noble friend will not be surprised to hear that the letter from the Foreign Secretary effectively tells the Secretary-General that we are prepared to take such a leading role if we are asked to do so. It states:
	"The International Security Assistance Force will have a particular mission authorised by a United Nations Security Council Resolution that is distinct from Operation Enduring Freedom."
	We hope that that resolution will be forthcoming in the next 48 hours or so.
	The coalition has always regarded the humanitarian aid effort as vital and as equally important to the military and diplomatic efforts. As has been said from this Dispatch Box on many occasions already, our war is not with the Afghan people but with those who harbour terrorism.
	I have to make it clear to the House that ISAF's prime role is not a humanitarian one; one suspects that it will have enough on its plate without doing that very important job as well.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, is the Minister saying as a definite undertaking that the Security Council will meet in the next 48 hours? If so, how does that square with his earlier comment that the military agreement will not be signed until the day on which the Interim Authority takes over? Will the Interim Authority then pass a resolution of its own giving authorisation to the troops to be present in Afghanistan pending any resolution of the Security Council if it has not been passed by then?
	Perhaps I may ask also about the time scale for this interim force. The acting Defence Minister said that it would be there for only six months but as I understand the Bonn agreement, the requirement is for the Loya Jirgah to meet within six months and not necessarily for the new authority to have taken over by then. May we have an assurance that there is an agreement with the Interim Authority in Afghanistan that the force will remain there until the Loya Jirgah has completed its work and the new authority takes over?

Lord Bach: My Lords, as regards when the UN Security Council will meet to discuss any proposal, my understanding is that it will meet within the next 48 hours. I cannot confirm that but that is my understanding. That is the chronology that is intended at least, leading up to Saturday 22nd, when the new authority takes over.
	I cannot give the undertaking about the ISAF and six months. It is not in my power to do that. But I say from this Dispatch Box that I should be very surprised indeed if the ISAF were not there until the time at least that the Loya Jirgah met.

Lord Burnham: My Lords, I am sure that the House is grateful to the Minister for coming here today, clearly before he is really ready to do so. I have three questions which occur to me which he may or may not be able to answer.
	First, I echo the surprise of my noble friend Lord Vivian that the British force will be in effective control for a period of only three months. Is that really practical? Secondly, which units—not which individual units—of what arms are likely to be sent to Afghanistan for that purpose? Thirdly, what will happen to the tasks which are at present being undertaken by 3 Div?

Lord Bach: My Lords, the noble Lord is right; I cannot answer all three questions. We believe that the three-month period is sensible. There would be an outcry if there were some indefinite period for British troops to lead this force. Bearing that in mind, we think, and it is thought proper from a military point of view, that three months is a proper period.
	I want to make a point about the three months in answer to the noble Lord's question. It is three months from when the force is operational. I have pointed out already to the House that it will not begin to be formed until 28th December and will take some weeks after that. So we are not, for example, saying three months from this Saturday.
	On the second question, the noble Lord knows which divisions and which troops are going to Afghanistan but as to the detail of his question, I shall have to write to him. On the role of 3 Div, that role will be filled by others while elements from that division are serving in Afghanistan.

Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, perhaps I may say how very much I welcome the Statement repeated by the Minister. As I said on Monday, it is absolutely vital that we give every necessary assistance to the Interim Authority to bring about a better life for the people of Afghanistan and better governance. If it is appropriate that that assistance is in the form of our Armed Forces, then it is a very good thing that we are sending our Armed Forces. I am extremely pleased to hear that they are taking a leading role because of their professionalism and expertise in that field.
	I accept entirely that this is not the time to ask detailed questions of my noble friend. I ask only one question. Will he confirm that, in addition to the troop movements which he has announced in the Statement, British forces who are already in theatre, on land and at sea, and doing such a magnificent job, will stay in position?

Lord Bach: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for her support and her question. We are discussing today those troops which are to go into Afghanistan. We know that there are some there already. We know also that in theatre, there are many British service people at sea. They will remain there because, of course, the fight against terrorism is far from over. As the Statement says, the war is being won but it is not won yet. The ships that we have there are no doubt a source of great comfort to those troops who will be going in to Afghanistan to lead the force.
	Before leaving the point, it should be said from this House too that not only do we wish well those who are giving up their Christmas, as it were, to be out there, but we also appreciate those who have been out there now for some time who will also be there over Christmas and the New Year. We send them our best wishes too.

Lord Howe of Aberavon: My Lords, I am sure that the Minister will take comfort, as we all intend, from the extent to which this mission is so widely supported as a necessary step in response to the disintegration of the former state of Afghanistan and the need to put it together again.
	But will the Minister also derive some wisdom from the experience of not dissimilar exercises? There have been many variations over the past 20 or 30 years. I have in mind, for example, at least one in the Middle East. One draws two conclusions from that. It is extremely important for every contingency to be foreseen as far as possible. Nothing can shake such a mission more seriously than the impact of the unexpected. Will he accept that? Will he accept also that that is all the more reason for the different nations coming together in creating this multi-national force to have the closest possible political co-operation throughout at the most intimate level in order to be sure that they react nationally as well as internationally in the same kind of way to those hazards which may yet develop?

Lord Bach: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for what he has said, speaking as he does with vast experience of these matters over many years. There is nothing in his contribution to which I could possibly take exception. I know that we are looking into all the matters which he raised. We do not believe that this is an easy operation. The Statement did not say that it was and no one can pretend that it will be. We must take into account the historical precedents. At the same time, it is gratifying, as the noble and learned Lord said, that we have such widespread support for what we are doing here because it is clearly the right thing to do.

Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, will the noble Lord accept my thanks too for the Statement which he has repeated and the positive decision that has been taken? Does he not agree that it is crucial that one of the very few countries (which the United Kingdom is) which can quickly deploy forces in peace operations should step forward on an occasion like this? There are not many countries around the world which can do that and if they all stand back and ask each other to do it, such operations will not be performed properly.
	Will the noble Lord say something about steps which could be taken through the broadcasting, radio and television media in the vernacular languages to explain the purposes of this mission and to ensure that the people of Afghanistan know that the troops are coming there to help them to get themselves on their feet again? There have been really serious shortcomings in a number of peace operations in recent years when a lot of disinformation has been put around by people who have a vested interest in giving the impression that people are coming in to dominate them, to be colonial and so on. Therefore, it is extremely important that that dimension of this operation should be taken in hand.

Lord Bach: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, speaks with great experience of these matters. I am grateful for his comments. He is right to say that there are few countries in the world that can take the lead in a matter such as we are discussing. Dare I say from the Dispatch Box that perhaps no other country could do it as well as we can? As regards the media, the noble Lord will recall from the debate the other day that praise was heaped on the BBC World Service for the part that it has already played. It was suggested that in the next spending review it should be rewarded handsomely for what it has done and continues to do. Although I do not have a direct answer on that point and nothing fresh to add, it is an important consideration. I shall make sure that it is appreciated by those who take the relevant decisions.

Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, can the Minister give an assurance that out of the 1,500 British troops sent to Kabul too many will not be dispersed to police, staff and other duties and that a force which will be an influence of good for the Government will be kept intact?

Lord Bach: My Lords, so far as I can, I give the noble Lord the assurance that he seeks. It is not for me to say how that will work operationally on the ground. If he is concerned about the security of our forces, he can rest assured that their protection is our first consideration.

Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in supporting strongly the expressions of goodwill for our forces who now have to undertake an exceptionally difficult and dangerous task, not made easier by the singularly untidy nature of the present deployment. I do not criticise the Government for that; it probably could not be otherwise. However, it is exceptionally difficult for the forces going out.
	The impression has grown—not, I think, due to the Minister—that somehow the military technical agreement is guaranteed to be signed on 22nd December when the authority will formally take office. The Minister has not said so, but the Statement makes clear that General McColl will continue discussions in a few days' time in the hope of reaching a satisfactory agreement. That emphasises how untidy the position is.
	The Minister will be aware that there is some contrast between the Statement and the letter that the Foreign Secretary sent to the Secretary General of the United Nations on the term of deployment. The Statement says that after three months we shall hand over lead nation status to one of our partners. The letter asks the Secretary General to support efforts to identify a successor lead nation by asking member states to consider urgently the possibility of taking over. Perhaps that matter has already been agreed.
	Noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, rightly paid tribute to the quality of our forces and our command. I refer not merely to their speed of deployment but also to the capability that they bring to the command and control role. For reasons of propriety some countries are obviously not suitable to take over that job in Afghanistan at the present time. Other countries do not have the capacity to do so. There is a limited number of countries which can take over the role. We have been good at getting in but I have the gravest misgivings as to whether we shall be able to withdraw from that command and control role as early as the Government suggest.

Lord Bach: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his comments and questions. He is right to comment on the difficulty of the enterprise. However, it is certainly our intention that three months from when the force becomes operational we shall give up our lead nation status. As regards the military technical agreement, I remind the noble Lord of what the Statement says. If I have given a false impression in answering questions, I retract that. The Statement says:
	"These tasks will need to be encapsulated in a detailed Military Technical Agreement, which we anticipate finalising with the Interim Authority as soon as possible after it is established".
	I think that 22nd December will be a busy enough day, but I do not think that the MTA will be signed on that day.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords—

Lord Grocott: My Lords, we are well past the 20 minutes point at this stage. I realise that this is an extremely important Statement but there is another one due immediately.

National Stadium

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to report in the form of a Statement the Answer to a Private Notice Question given by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. The Answer is as follows:
	"I welcome the opportunity to make a Statement informing the House of the state of progress in the Government's discussions with the Football Association on the national stadium.
	"I have today published the interim report of Patrick Carter's review of the English national stadium. I should like to place on record my gratitude to Patrick Carter and the rest of the review team for their considerable efforts over the past six months and for the co-operation which they have received from the Football Association, Sport England and others putting forward proposals for the stadium.
	"His key recommendations are as follows. The only way forward is to invite the promoters of the World Stadium Team proposals—based on a modified version of the Foster design—to present final proposals which contain fully committed funding, final design, cost and procurement details. Should those proposals not be delivered within a reasonable timescale, Birmingham should be actively considered.
	"No commitments should be made by any party until such time as final agreements have been reached as regards funding and procurement. The Government must be satisfied that all aspects of the stadium's procurement meet government standards of propriety and regularity.
	"Patrick Carter's report recognises that the leadership of this project must rest with the FA whose final decision it will be on what stadium to build and where. Its preference, on grounds of the greater return which it will make for its investment, is to go ahead with a modified version of the Foster design stadium at Wembley. It has accepted that should that fail, the strong proposals from Birmingham should be taken forward. At the same time it accepts, as do the Government, that it remains a possible outcome that no national stadium at all will be developed.
	"As the FA has made clear, it does not believe that this project can move forward without government support. But any further financial support is conditional, limited to covering non-stadium infrastructure costs and the Government's interest is also to protect the £120 million of lottery money already invested.
	"There is a great deal of work to be done before there can be a final decision on the national stadium. A timetable for that must be set which is fair to all those with an interest in the outcome. Patrick Carter's report describes the many uncertainties which need to be resolved. Any government support for infrastructure would not be committed until all those uncertainties were dealt with. I must also alert the House to issues concerning the proposed procurement at Wembley which will need to be fully dealt with as part of this work.
	"The House will be aware that I had intended to make an announcement on Monday 17th December about the national stadium. I should explain the reasons for the delay. It came to my attention at the end of November that concerns had been expressed that Wembley National Stadium Limited had not adhered to best procurement practices or corporate government arrangements in relation to the new Wembley stadium. I was told that those complaints did not involve suggestion of any fraud taking place but implied a lack of transparency in part of the process and a failure to deal properly with actual or potential conflicts of interest. I was told that an investigation into the complaints was under way for Wembley National Stadium Limited and that a report was expected any day.
	"On 13th December I asked about progress with this report and was given oral assurances that there was no identified impropriety but that the chairman of Wembley National Stadium Limited would contact my permanent secretary the next day.
	"Officials discussed the report in draft on Sunday 16th December with the FA, Wembley National Stadium Limited and its authors and asked that the report be finalised and made available to the Government for our consideration before the Government made any decision on going forward with the national stadium project.
	"A final version of the report was received yesterday. I have suggested to the FA and Wembley National Stadium Limited that they should make it available to the public. I have also asked that they make the report available to the National Audit Office.
	"The final report confirms that there have been a number of serious concerns. WNSL has today made a statement outlining the principle conclusions of the report and I quote:
	'no evidence whatever had been found of any criminality or impropriety at any stage of the process; the report was critical of the procurement process up to September 2000 and recommended specific steps to be taken by WNSL for the close monitoring of the project going forward; the review addressed issues relating to value for money but found that there was a sustainable argument that best value today was likely to result by enabling WNSL to proceed through Multiplex to build a new National Stadium; the report recommended WNSL to review certain aspects of corporate governance'.
	"Patrick Carter has alluded to these concerns in the covering letter to his report in which he recommends that I satisfy myself,
	'as to the achievement of Government value for money in procurement standards and any associated accounting issues'.
	"I have said to the FA and WNSL that should they continue with the Multiplex contract they must set in train an independent assessment of the value for money which it represents and to ensure that corporate governance and procurement arrangements hereafter represent best practice before the Government will proceed with any further support to the project, financial, moral or otherwise.
	"There are in essence four points that must now be addressed by the FA and WNSL. They are these. First, an independent value for money assessment needs to be commissioned into the proposed contracts with Multiplex, conducted by an appropriate company with no previous or likely future involvement in the project.
	"Secondly, I will ask WNSL to ensure that the papers relating to the matter are made available to the Comptroller and Auditor General to decide whether he wishes to look into this matter further.
	"Thirdly, confirmation will be sought that corporate governance changes will be completed to achieve a management structure capable of delivering a complex project within procedures acceptable to the public sector.
	"Fourthly, confirmation will be sought that the financial support is adequate and fully committed after taking into account all relevant factors in a process of 'due diligence'.
	"Finally, I would like to explain the position with regard to athletics. Sport England and the FA will look at this during the next stage of discussions. Sport England believes that a different platform solution can be developed more cheaply and without the disruption associated with the original proposals.
	"I will be asking Sport England to commission a detailed technical evaluation of the proposals to ensure that they meet in full UK athletics and IAAF technical criteria. I have also asked them to prepare a proper cost benefit analysis which compares the new proposals with those made in 1999.
	"In short, the Government will work with the FA to resolve these issues. The end result we all want is a national stadium. But the four fundamental points must be addressed first. Then we will have a national stadium we can all be proud of".
	My Lords, that concludes the Answer.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Answer given in another place by her right honourable friend in response to a Private Notice Question tabled by my right honourable friend Tim Yeo.
	This is a serious matter. The Government seem now to distance themselves from decisions about Wembley. They talk about working with the FA but say that a decision about whether there is a national stadium and where it is built is for the FA and the FA alone. That is a somewhat different measure.
	The Government seem to have a short memory. They seem to have forgotten that the Prime Minister made the following commitment after previous failures with the Wembley project. At col. 841 of the Official Report of another place of 2nd May 2001, the Prime Minister said that,
	"we must now sit down and work out a way through [the problem] so that we have a proper national stadium".
	It is a matter of record that at first the Government agreed that there should be a national stadium at Wembley with athletics. Then they decided that there should be a national stadium at Wembley without athletics. It was, after all, the previous Secretary of State, Chris Smith, who pulled the plug on athletics at Wembley. The Government could not then decide whether there should be a national stadium and whether athletics should be part of it. Today we seem not much further forward.
	My questions are as follows. The Government sound as though they have set a deadline for the final proposals to be put forward by the World Stadium Team. Or have they? The Minister quotes the Carter report's recommendation that Birmingham should be actively considered if the World Stadium Team is unable to present its final proposals within a reasonable timescale. What is "reasonable"?
	The Minister says that a timetable must be set which is fair to all those with an interest in the outcome. That is quite right; I welcome it. But what is that timetable? If we are not told now, does the noble Baroness agree that it would be unreasonable to expect the main players to work on without being given a steer as to the timetable.
	The Minister says that further financial support for the project is conditional, limited to covering non-stadium costs. What are those costs? Has a ceiling been set by the Government? If so, on what basis? Will the Minister give an undertaking that no more public money will be committed to this project until the contracts are finalised?
	The Minister says that the Government's interest is to protect the £120 million of lottery players' money—the public's money. I welcome that commitment. But how will the Government protect that money? Why should the FA continue to hold on to those funds when we still have no commitment about the position of athletics at Wembley? The noble Baroness will recall that the lottery grant was made in the first place only on the basis that athletics, alongside rugby, would have a home at Wembley—a home suitable for world class events. Will the FA hand back at least £20 million of the lottery grant until we find out whether athletics will be given more than a token presence at the national stadium—if there is one?
	Noble Lords will be as disturbed today as I was to hear the Minister's statement about the failure by Wembley National Stadium Limited to adhere to best procurement practices or indeed to corporate government arrangements. I am relieved to learn that there is no evidence as to criminality or impropriety at any stage of the process. That is indeed an important matter.
	However, is the Minister aware that the revelation today of this failure by the company to adhere to proper standards will do little to encourage investment in such a project? Will she accept that it is not enough for those involved in this nationally important project to be honest? They have to be competent too. The Minister says that she has suggested to the FA and Wembley National Stadium Limited that they should make the report available to the public. What was their response to the suggestion?
	I welcome the Minister's insistence that the FA and WNSL should commission an independent assessment of the value for money issue. That is a practical and proper way forward. Will that independent report be available to the public? The tail end of the Statement refers briefly to the vexed issue of the status of athletics at Wembley or Birmingham. Last night Members of this House were led by my noble friend Lord Glentoran in a debate on the future of athletics. The Government will have been left in no doubt of the importance which noble Lords attach to the need to ensure that athletics has a venue for international events.
	In another place the Secretary of State said today in answer to a question that Wembley must be an "athletics capable stadium". I found that a curious description. How does the Minister define that—capable of doing what? What guarantee do we have that the athletics facilities at Wembley will be such that we can make a proper bid in future for the World Championships or athletics events of similar international stature?
	I began by saying that it is a serious matter. Indeed it is. It is a matter of national interest and national pride. It is vital for the future of our sporting reputation, but particularly for the future hopes and dreams of our sportsmen and sportswomen, that the right solution is found soon.

Viscount Falkland: My Lords, we on these Benches thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Answer to the Private Notice Question of Mr Tim Yeo in the other place.
	The noble Baroness read out the Answer confidently and clearly, as one would expect. However, the tone of the Statement does not reflect the confidence with which she delivered it. Rather, it is as though one had taken a number of close friends to a restaurant for an important occasion and the maitre d'hotel had said, "Your meal will not be delayed for very long. We will soon put out the fire in the kitchen". This has been a stop and go year—mostly stop—which has resulted in a fairly big mess. I do not believe that the Statement today will reassure many of those who have closely followed these events.
	On behalf of these Benches, I have previously said that the argument about whether or not we should have a national stadium was not properly exercised by the Government. If we were to have a national stadium, surely the Government should have taken the leading role in ensuring that a national stadium project was carried out. Instead, the Government passed the buck to the Football Association, which was willing to take the lead on what we call a national stadium but was unable to do so. It was unable to raise the money in the city. Mr Ken Bates was unable to raise the £40 million or £50 million required. In due course he retired and was replaced by his successor, Sir Rodney Walker. Sir Rodney Walker also met with difficulties in raising the money. More significant was the Football Association's failure to persuade the Government—the Government were right to stand firm on this point—to fund £300 million of the estimated cost of this project. At a later stage, of course, they produced half that amount.
	It seems that we now have a patching-up exercise. I shall not be so rude as to suggest, as some newspapers have, that it is a face-saving exercise. However, I believe that the Government and the Football Association have got themselves into a fair mess over this matter, and I am not sanguine about them getting out of it. If I represented a large organisation faced with the prospect of being sold this bill of goods, I do not believe that I would be confident about supporting it. That is because I do not think that it will happen. I believe that we shall again face the same problems in terms of raising the money.
	We now have a contractor in place. There is a very interesting article in today's Guardian—noble Lords may not consider articles in the Guardian to be interesting, but they are from time to time—which refers to the difficulties of the Australian company, Multiplex. I do not believe everything that I read in newspapers—in fact, I rather like their slogan, "Well built Australian"—but some fairly Les Patterson-type remarks were made by the chairman of that company, who, when asked whether the stadium would be finished in time for the FA Cup final in 2005, replied, "You can come and thump me if it isn't". I like that kind of direct speaking, but it does not exactly fit with the kind of tone that we expect for a national stadium. He also admitted that he has not the slightest interest in football. He said, "I haven't got a bloody clue about the offside rule", which does not inspire much confidence.
	On a more serious note, we must begin to find answers to a number of questions. In my view, the question of the £120 million of lottery money has been tagged on to the Statement as a kind of appendix. Because we all read the newspapers, we know that the National Audit Office is taking a very close interest in what happened to the £120 million. Is that the reason for so many delays in recent weeks? Is that the reason the Government and the FA, apart from deciding what kind of bidding practices should be employed in the competition between Birmingham and Wembley, found themselves in difficulties?
	On the subject of Wembley, as a very frequent visitor over the years, I can say that the traffic congestion is a nightmare. It was a nightmare in the 1960s, when I used to watch boxing matches there. Now it is a real nightmare. With the best will in the world, the £17 million or so that the Mayor, Mr Ken Livingstone, suggests he will contribute to improving the road access to Wembley will not be enough. In addition, we read that IMG has been awarded the contract to run the corporate side of what is called the national stadium, which apparently will raise revenue of £30 million per year. I shall believe that when I see it.
	I should like to ask the noble Baroness whether what we are talking about is a national football stadium, not a national stadium. I am, and always have been, in favour of a national stadium located in London. However, with the crowds that it will attract, especially if corporate entertaining becomes a reality, a national football stadium will require an enormous road infrastructure around it, which will cost well in excess of £17 million.
	In my opinion, we are talking about a national football stadium, not about athletics or any other sport. A national stadium is a national enterprise, for use not only for football, our national game, but also for other large sporting events, such as athletics. God forbid that we should have an event such as that in the United States when a memorial was held in a stadium for the terrible disaster that took place there. We need something of that standing—a national monument, which advertises to the rest of the world our confidence to have a national stadium. That will not happen. If this proposal goes ahead, we shall have a national football stadium, probably in the wrong place. I believe that a national football stadium should probably be in Birmingham. I am a betting man and prepared to bet that at the end of the day we shall have a national football stadium in Birmingham, but that in the interim period we shall see a lot of money go down the drain, in addition to the £50 million that has already gone.
	Because I speak on these DCMS matters, I should be grateful if the noble Baroness would address my concern about the £120 million that has already been passed to the Football Association. How do the Government propose to recover that money? On what has it been spent? How long will the National Audit Office take to report back on that matter? Are the Government prepared to move before the National Audit Office provides us with full details relating to the spending of the £120 million? Those are a few of my questions. I could continue asking questions all night but I do not intend to do so. In conclusion—let us not mince words—will the Minister kindly confirm that this is a national football stadium, not a national stadium?

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I start by responding to the last point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland. I cannot confirm that this will be a national football stadium, because it will not be. The noble Viscount has completely forgotten that it will be a stadium for rugby league, a very important sport at least in some parts of the country, if not in those parts where the noble Viscount spends his time. Moreover, the future of athletics in the stadium is still open, as the Statement made clear.
	I say to the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, and the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, that the Government have made it clear that it is for the Football Association to take the project forward and that the Government's role is to act as a facilitator.
	The noble Baroness asked why my right honourable friend Chris Smith, the previous Secretary of State, decided to pull the plug on athletics. The answer is that the scheme that was proposed at that time was not viable. It would have cost £40 million to include an athletics platform in the proposed design. It would take six months to remove the platform in order to restore the stadium for other sports and six months to put it back again. That scheme clearly did not make much sense.
	The noble Baroness asked about timetables and deadlines. Several complex issues still have to be resolved in that regard. In the end, it is for the FA to come up with a timetable, and I have every expectation that it will do so quite soon.
	The noble Baroness also asked about further government funding and whether there was a ceiling on further government contributions. The answer is "yes". The Government have today stated that they will put a further £20 million into the project for infrastructural development—for non-stadium spending. That has to be subject to the assurances that the Government want—they were set out in the Statement—before agreeing that the present project should go forward.
	The noble Baroness wanted to know whether the FA was going to hand back the £20 million if athletics was not going to go forward. The answer is a clear "yes". The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, asked what had happened to the original £120 million. Of that sum, £106 million was spent by the FA on purchasing the freehold of Wembley, which it did not previously own, and £14 million was spent on design work for the new stadium. The £20 million is not, as it were, being handed back as unspent money; it is being provided by the FA voluntarily if it does not have to continue with athletics at the stadium. I hope that I have clearly explained the position.
	The noble Baroness also asked about the publication of the report by WNSL. We have not yet had a response from WNSL about that, but the Secretary of State has made it absolutely clear that she believes that it should be published. However, it is not the Government's report and the matter is obviously for WNSL, which commissioned the report.
	Athletics is a matter of great interest to the House, as was witnessed in our debate on an Unstarred Question last night, which was responded to by my noble friend Lord Davies of Oldham. It is important for Sport England to carry out a full technical assessment of the feasibility of including athletics and to ensure that UK athletics and the international federation are completely satisfied with any proposals that might be pursued. We have to have an arrangement that is feasible and which makes sense. These are highly technical questions.
	The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, also asked about Multiplex. He said that he does not believe everything that he reads in the papers; neither do I. And I am afraid that I am not an expert on the offside rule, either. However, I am not sure how far being an expert on the offside rule is a significant and important qualification in relation to the contract that Multiplex might be taking on in building the stadium.
	The noble Viscount also discussed the traffic and infrastructure around Wembley. The Government entirely accept that it is important that we have proper access to the stadium and that there should be good transport links to and from it. The noble Viscount was perhaps putting too much emphasis on the roads; it is equally important to have proper rail and Tube connections to Wembley. For that reason, some extra funding is being provided by the Government—it was announced today—to go towards infrastructural costs. Other partners, besides the Mayor, are involved, including Brent and other interests.
	I believe that I have answered all of the questions. If some remain unanswered, I shall write to the noble Baroness and the noble Viscount.

Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, have not the FA scored a spectacular own goal by ignoring seven out of 10 fans and 55 out of 64 premier and league football clubs? They wanted the game that is at the heart of the nation to be sited at the heart of the nation, through the Birmingham Solihull bid. Will the Minister spell out precisely the extent of the Government's financial commitment and make it clear whether that would, in any circumstances, go beyond the £20 million that was announced today? How does she realistically rate the chances of the FA doing in 15 weeks what it is signally failed to do in the past six years?

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am well aware of my noble friend's big commitment to having the development in Birmingham, and I understand the disappointment of people in Birmingham and the West Midlands that both the FA and the Carter report favoured Wembley. It is for the FA to make a final decision on that matter, and it should take into account the views of the football community across England. I believe that it has done so, and I understand that there are commercial advantages in choosing Wembley.
	On my noble friend's other point, I give a clear commitment that the Government are not intending to put any further funding into the project, other than the £20 million that we announced today and the £120 million that has already gone into the project from the lottery.

Lord Fowler: My Lords, I contest that answer. For the first time in 25 years, I find myself in entire agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Corbett. There will be grave disappointment in Birmingham and the West Midlands about the way in which the decision appears to be going. It is the second time in succession that the natural decision was for a project to come to Birmingham and the West Midlands, but it has gone to London and the South East. I speak as a long-standing opponent of the Dome going to Greenwich, under either government. By any definition, much public money will go into the project—lottery money, government money and development agency money. In those circumstances and with that financial influence, Ministers can surely do more than they are currently doing to ensure a better and fairer spread of such national projects around the country.

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I cannot add a great deal to what I have already said. Again, I understand the commitment of the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, to Birmingham and the West Midlands. He represented a constituency there for a very long time in another place. However, these issues have been examined in great depth by a completely independent commentator, Patrick Carter. He supports the position taken by the FA, which is that, on balance, there are advantages in the national stadium being sited in the capital at Wembley. At the same time, he has made it clear that, if for one reason or another that does not happen, Birmingham will be a very acceptable alternative.

Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the Statement that she has repeated today has more holes in it than a sieve? If she examines the detail of the FA's financing, she will realise that it is not acceptable to put such a financial position before your Lordships' House. It is not adequate that this House should be given a Statement suggesting that the FA will be engaged in a kind of voluntary process in returning £20 million of our money when it will have acquired the freehold of Wembley Stadium.
	The Statement is a failure if it pretends that Birmingham is being treated fairly by being given a chance to bid if London fails. That shows how skewed and biased the decision-making process is. Does my noble friend accept that the Statement that she has been forced to read to your Lordships today shows a lack of fairness, equity and transparency? Certainly it shows a total lack of a level playing field when it comes to making essentially national rather than London-centric decisions.

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, again, my noble friend is a very forceful pursuer of the interests of Birmingham and the West Midlands. As I said in reply to the noble Lords who asked the previous two questions on this matter, I understand the disappointment. However, I believe that my noble friend has gone a little over the top in some respects. I stand by the Statement that has just been made. I do not believe that it is full of holes. In many ways I believe that we are now moving forward towards a national stadium of which we can all be proud. Of course, further issues must be resolved. But I also say to my noble friend that, if the project does not go ahead, the £120 million will have to be returned to the Government. That has always been fully understood. That was the basis on which the money was provided, and I hope that my noble friend will accept that.

Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, will the noble Baroness accept that this is quite the most disappointing Statement that I have ever heard in all my parliamentary life? Is she aware that the whole country was geared up to hear an announcement today about what was going to happen? But here we are, two years later, with £50 million down the drain and with no decision having been taken. It may be another two years before a decision is made. Is she aware that the Government have scored the most awful own goal today? The announcement is totally disappointing, and everyone will want to know why it has taken so long to reach this position. Is she aware that this puts the Select Committee's condemnation of the Government entirely in its proper light?
	However, can she go further in relation to the £120 million? It was given by Sport England to the FA—very foolishly, I believe—because of the involvement of athletics. But there is no involvement of athletics and nor will there be. The configuration of athletics in a 400-metre stadium is simply not on. Had the noble Baroness read the report of our debate on the subject last night, she would know that we explained that. The total £120 million should be handed back to Sport England to distribute through the lottery system to good causes in sport generally in the United Kingdom. That is absolutely essential; otherwise, the £120 million will simply sit there for the FA to make money out of when it has no right to it at all.

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I believe that there is some misunderstanding on the part of the noble Lord. The £120 million is not simply sitting there. As I have already explained, that money has been used both to purchase the freehold and to undertake the extensive and expensive design work that must be carried out in relation to a major project of this type. That is why the lottery and Sport England decided to hand over the money. As I have already said, if the project does not go forward, the money will be returned.
	I also believe that the noble Lord has misunderstood the situation when he says categorically that there will be no involvement of athletics in the project. I have made it absolutely clear that there are now new technical ways in which to build athletics into a stadium of this type. Because I am not an expert—nor, indeed, is anyone in this House—I cannot say whether that new approach will be viable. That is why it must be examined by all the experts, including the international federation and the UK board of athletics. That makes absolute sense. Therefore, I believe that the noble Lord is being over-dismissive before it is appropriate to be so.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I start by declaring an unpaid interest as a local authority-nominated public interest director of the Cardiff Millennium Stadium. That stadium was built on time and on budget for £140 million with only £46 million of Millennium Commission grant. I have some sympathy for my noble friend and for the Secretary of State. The one aspect of the Statement which I consider to be absolutely right is that which insists that the match should go into extra time.
	The concern expressed by Mr Carter over corporate governance and the procurement process as it relates to the Multiplex company seems to me to be entirely justified. The noble Viscount referred to this morning's Guardian. If he had looked at tonight's Evening Standard he would find more revelations about Multiplex—the company responsible for building the west stand at Chelsea Football Club—in relation to an investigation carried out by an Australian Royal Commission into corruption in the construction industry. I believe that those issues must be resolved. The role of Multiplex in this project and, indeed, in other football projects in this country also needs to be examined carefully before that company is allowed to take part in this new project.
	I want to ask another question about the return of the £20 million of lottery funding. In tonight's press, Mr Trevor Brooking, the chairman of Sport England, is apparently quoted as saying that the Wembley scheme complies with lottery funding requirements and will be eligible for a £120 million grant; that is, with no return of the £20 million. On the other hand, there is a reference to the view of the Secretary of State. It is said that Tessa Jowell is understood to be firmly of the opinion that the money should be repaid. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport hotly disputes reports that it has already agreed that the FA should keep the £20 million. I wonder whether my noble friend can clear up that matter and tell us whether the Secretary of State or Mr Trevor Brooking is right on that.

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, perhaps I may comment on the first set of issues raised by my noble friend. It is because of the concerns of Patrick Carter and, indeed, the report carried out for WNSL that the Secretary of State has made it absolutely clear that answers are needed to a number of questions. It is for those reasons that an independent value-for-money assessment needs to be commissioned into the proposed contracts with Multiplex. It is for those reasons that confirmation is required that corporate government changes will be completed in order to achieve a management structure capable of delivering a complex project within the procedures that are acceptable to the public sector. And it is for those reasons that confirmation is required that financial support is adequate after taking into account all the relevant factors in a process of due diligence.
	However, my noble friend asked again about the return of £20 million of lottery funding. I believe that, again, I need to make it clear that the whole £120 million has already been spent. Therefore, it is not a matter of returning lottery funding in that sense; it is a matter of the Football Association fulfilling its agreement to pay £20 million for its release from a commitment to athletics in the national stadium. If athletics do not take place in the national stadium the Football Association will pay back the £20 million. If athletics do take place, that extra money will be available to put into athletics. I hope that I have made that clear.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, what lessons have the Government learned so far from the national stadium story?

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am a little surprised by the tone of the question posed by the noble Lord. Today's announcement demonstrates that the Football Association is committed to developing a national stadium. It has indicated that Wembley is its preferred option—I know that that disappoints some, but it pleases others—and it has reaffirmed its financial commitment to the project. Today the Government have made a commitment, in principle, to put in a further £20 million towards the infrastructure. The Statement contains many positive aspects, but the noble Lord appears to see only the negative.

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, along with many other noble Lords, I find the Statement particularly depressing. I strongly support what the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, said about Wales. I declare an interest as a millennium commissioner and I have been one since the conception of the commission under my noble friend Lord Brooke.
	However, paragraph 15 of the Statement depresses me. It states that,
	"confirmation that corporate governance changes will be completed to achieve a management structure capable of delivering a complex project within procedures".
	After what we went through with NMEC and the Dome—I sat on the finance committee of the Millennium Commission during a most incompetent, mismanaged major project—the Government have still not learned what they should do to look after our lottery money, and to ensure that proper corporate governance is in place. Clearly, on this point such corporate governance is not in place. The Secretary of State has said that there is no sign, at this stage, of fraud. But, judging by what happened with NMEC, there is fraud somewhere and misappropriation.
	I would like confirmation from the Secretary of State in reference to the purchasing of the property by the FA. Can she assure the House that the grant, contracts and the directions associated with the grant are totally in line with the controls on the expenditure of lottery funding? I find it hard to believe that an organisation like Sport England was able to give the FA £120 million to buy a property with no ties? Where has the money gone?

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I believe that I have already explained where the lottery money has gone. The confirmation of adequate corporate governance applies to the project as it develops over the number of years taken to build it. It is extremely important that in any contract for a huge and complex project of this kind that corporate governance should be adequate. Having seen the signals from a report commissioned by WNSL, the Government are taking the right steps to ensure that that happens. If there are any lessons to be learned from the history of the Dome—I am not clear to what the noble Lord refers when he talks about fraud on a large scale as I do not believe that there is much evidence of that—the Government are doing exactly what needs to be done to ensure that all the right procedures are followed and that we have proper propriety in the pursuit of this project in the future.

Litter

Lord Hardy of Wath: rose to call attention to the problem of litter; and to move for Papers.
	My Lords, I am pleased to have this opportunity to raise the problem of litter. I first sought a debate on this subject a year ago. Since then it is clear that the problem has become even more disturbing. A decade ago I recall that in the other place we were told by the previous government that the incidence of litter was reducing. It was not and it has not.
	I am aware that Her Majesty's Government are concerned that the scale of litter does not help us to defend our country against a not wholly justified charge that it is the dirty man of Europe. But our country is not clean. Although there are some areas where local pride and community action have secured an impressive condition, in other areas the scale of litter is dreadful and I am sad to say that parts of my own county of South Yorkshire offer cause for disgust. Perhaps that is linked to the devastation of our economic base in the 1980s, when I recall suggesting that, although the employment effect was dire, the social corrosion that could result may be a graver consequence. That may be a factor.
	However, there has been continuing economic transformation and marked advance that justifies great hope, but the litter problem is worse than ever. In the 1960s, as chairman of our local authority, I remember that we had a campaign to clear litter. Then the problem was tiny. It is widely recognised that the level of decay and litter today would have been unimaginable then. The Rotherham local authority has recently consulted the public and the result has been a clear statement and a clear expression of public opinion that the defeat of litter should command the highest local priority.
	On Saturday I visited the town centre in Wath Upon Dearne. The volume of litter was dreadful and worse than any I have seen before. There are many litter bins and I looked in quite a few of them. For every piece of litter in the litter bins there were at least 100 pieces scattered about near them. Many of the items of litter were strewn about in close proximity to the CCTV cameras. When the cameras were installed we had high hopes of their effect, but clearly they have not inhibited the fouling of the area.
	Sooner or later common sense will suggest that, in order to defeat the problem, all available weapons will have to be deployed. Two or three years ago I recall being horrified by deliberate dumping of litter in attractive locations. I took photographs and sent some to the local authority, to the local newspapers and to the chief constable. The local authority cleared those sites that were foul and disgusting—plastic bags and bags that had burst with dreadful things oozing from them—within 24 hours. The local press published the photographs and offered supportive comment, but I had no response from the third recipient.
	The public see the deliberate dumping of litter as similar to the crimes of vandalism, criminal damage and graffiti. Often they are treated as trivial offences, but their incidence today is so serious that they eat into the very heart of the public good. Such offences are expensive. There should be greater awareness of how much they cost and to what better purposes that money could be put if there were a greater degree of responsibility.
	When in London I live in Pimlico, close to a local secondary school. In my years of residence there I have not encountered any litter. That is not the case elsewhere. When I was a schoolmaster there was no litter problem at my establishment because if children dropped litter they picked it up and any other pieces that lay near it. However, the situation has changed. The other day a teacher said to me that in these increasingly litigious days, teachers are hesitant to ask children to pick up litter because the parents may object. Personally, I believe that that risk should be run.
	The other day I was reminded of the problem when Rotherham council advised me that the recent fixed penalty orders that the council had issued were applied in some cases to children whose schools they had visited to help in the fight against litter. Perhaps the national curriculum should include rather more complementary reference to the need for social responsibility.
	But I have sympathy with the teachers, just as I have with the excellent local authority officers who are at the forefront of the battle against litter. Mr Rex Carter and Mr Robert Crosby, for example, in Rotherham must feel almost daily frustration in their efforts in this direction.
	I have sympathy for police officers on the front line because the present legal position seems absurd. In practice, if a police officer sees someone drop some litter, he can ask him to remove it. If that person refuses he is unlikely to be prosecuted at the present time. In the past, if he had refused and then used obscene language in response to the policeman, he would probably have been prosecuted. But a learned judge recently described the "f" word as being in common parlance. Therefore, it is unlikely that anyone would be prosecuted if he used it in response to a police officer's request to remove the litter that he had dropped. That situation is quite absurd.
	The litter problem is also dangerous. We have regulations to deal specifically with dog fouling. But there are items of litter which perhaps are even more dangerous; for example, garden poisons, oil-based waste, sharp metal objects, pieces of wood with nails protruding from them and broken glass. In 1999, one of our dogs suffered quite serious and painful leg injuries. It required 30 visits to our local vet. Fortunately the dog was insured. But what would have been the consequence if a child had been injured by the same irresponsibly thrown litter?
	There is the present passion of the irresponsible motorist. They may not drink and drive, but many of them drink while driving and then throw the can or the bottle from the car window. Last Sunday I walked for about 600 yards along a busy road, with fields on one side and trees on the other, and there were scores of containers of food and drink. Many of them must have been thrown from car windows. What evidence do we have of any serious response to that kind of problem? What should we do about it?
	First, we need to see a determined effort to promote the case for decency, with higher priority being given to this aspect of public attention. It may have a cost, but so does the problem. Secondly, perhaps we need a specific local authority-linked national structure which can concentrate on the problem and ensure that best practices are widely known and swiftly followed and that worthwhile initiatives are nationally recognised.
	That is not all. Urgent attention needs to be given to the official regulations and practices. As I said, the present situation does not lead to any notable increase in the number of offences. There were far fewer convictions last year and in 1999 than there were 10 years earlier. Yet far more offences have taken place. There is a case for much greater use of fixed penalties. They involve the local authorities in considerable work and cost but can be a most useful tool of common sense. Unfortunately, I understand that the receipts from those notices have to be passed on to central government. I would rather the local authorities had them and were persuaded to use them to deal with and respond to this problem.
	I said earlier that in the 1960s I knew that students in schools in my area had to pick up litter from the site where they had thrown it. That leads me to suggest another change. Community service orders serve as an alternative to custodial sentences. The courts should not have the right to issue automatic custodial sentences in cases of this kind, but they should have the right and power—and exercise that power—to require offenders against the environment to spend significant time and trouble clearing up the areas that they have harmed. That would greatly encourage people who give dedicated service to the communities and care for their environment. Certainly they are not encouraged by the present situation when fines are around £84 per offence, whereas in 1993 they were £115. The fines have not even kept pace with the level of inflation while the problem has intensified quite severely.
	The Environmental Protection Act 1990 was quite a step forward, but both that Act and the consequential orders could usefully be reviewed. I accept that the department's code of practice is excellent, but it may not provide quite as much of the answer or encourage the adequacy of response that we need.
	I deal now with my two final points which are urgent and serious. I received a notice the other day—other noble Lords in London may have also—to say that if I wanted to dispose of a refrigerator it would cost me between £20 and £30. That is not unreasonable. I know that retailers will not accept old refrigerators and that local authorities have to pay at least £20 to dispose of them when they have been dumped. But already refrigerators are being dumped because of that charge. The risks associated with the recycling of old refrigerators are serious. But so is the risk of a child getting fast inside a dumped refrigerator and dying.
	Last week there were four dumped cars within a mile of my home, each having notices attached to them. That was the second weekend that two of them have been there. The new regulations are very desirable and will make a difference, but, so far as concerns pre-2002 cars, not for quite a time. The present position is absurd. The cost to a local authority of disposing of a dumped car may be as much as £138.
	In my metropolitan area of a quarter-of-a-million population, 39 cars were dumped in 1999-2000, 206 in 2000-2001 and we expect over 500 in the present financial year. If a dumped car is seen to be of value and has a tax disc, the local authority has to wait 21 days before it can remove it from the side of the highway; it has to wait 15 days if the vehicle is on private land; and if the vehicle does not have a tax disc, it has to wait seven days before it can remove it. If the vehicle has no value and has no tax disc, it can be removed. That means that dumped cars are quite often left in vulnerable places where they are a nuisance and a hazard. I believe that more urgent action is necessary.
	The principle underlying our environment policy is and must be that the polluter should pay. The public understand that; so should the polluter and the penalties should be relevant. We need to apply those penalties in order to secure the improvement needed. That effort should be maintained so that one day when we sing or recite the words, "green and pleasant land", we are not offering a mere parody. I beg to move for Papers.

Lord Marlesford: My Lords, we owe a debt of gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath, for starting this debate. It is an important subject. The most interesting part of the debate will be the Government's reply. We shall listen closely to discover whether they are a government of action and joined-together policies, or whether this is one of those debates to which they merely produce a defensive brief saying that they recognise that there are problems but they are dealing with them.
	Let us hope that we get some innovative thinking and specific replies to the points that we raise. If points that we raise are not answered in the Minister's speech, I hope that at least a letter will be placed in the Library in reply to each of them, which we can then use for our next debate, if necessary.
	Litter is a disgrace, and an unnecessary disgrace. Life is full of disgraces that are difficult to deal with. Litter is not one of them. There are two solutions to litter: first, not to throw it down; secondly, to pick it up. Let me deal with the two in order.
	First, let me deal with not throwing litter down. Let me follow the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hardy, about education. Teaching about litter should be specifically included in the curriculum of every school in the country—private or public. It should be a specific part of social responsibility. I would go further. All children at some stage in their time at school should go out on litter-picking parties. First, they would find out how satisfying it is to pick up litter. Secondly, it would make them more intolerant when they have left school of those who discard litter.
	Secondly, I have a specific suggestion to encourage picking up litter. Many years ago, in Oregon in the United States, a law was introduced whereby most food containers—cans, bottles and cartons—were returnable. They were returnable in that when anyone who picked up a discarded food container he could get a few cents when he took it to a shop. That has meant that when the affluent discard containers, the less affluent pick them up. They take them to a shop—it can be any shop—and the shops are under a legal obligation to pay so much per container.
	Oregon is one of the cleanest states in the United States. I strongly recommend a visit to those of your Lordships who have not been there. The returnable container law has spread to many other states. That is why the United States is surprisingly clean—certainly in comparison to this country. I offer that as a specific suggestion, and hope that the Minister will respond—perhaps by saying that the Government are already considering it and that it is to be contained in a future Bill to be presented to Parliament.
	I admit that there is a cost to making packaging returnable. It adds to the cost of the product. However, to coin a phrase, that is a price well worth paying.
	Let me turn to the question of penalties. I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Hardy, said. Of course there should be much wider prosecution. Closed circuit television is an obvious weapon to use. Community service is the ideal solution for those convicted of littering. It is tailor-made for it.
	However, let me tell the Minister a story of a friend of mine who was the chairman of a magistrates' bench in south London. She was asked—admittedly some years ago—by the chief probation officer of her court not to award so many community service orders. She was told, "Please, Mrs Stewart-Roberts, do not award so many community service orders, because there are not things for people to do". My friend said, "I find that strange. This is a pretty grubby part of London. What about picking up litter?". The probation officer drew himself up and said, "Mrs Stewart-Roberts, that would not be in accordance with the dignity of our clients". Imagine that! That is totally the wrong philosophy.
	I hope that the Minister will confirm that it is not the sort of attitude that she would endorse. If people have discarded litter, it is absolutely the ideal thing to make them pick up litter. It is a suitable penalty to meet the crime. I had an amusing experience not long ago. I was talking to some senior police officers and suggested that community service orders be used for collecting litter from roads. One senior officer was rather worried by that. He said, "That might be dangerous because people could be sucked into the road by a heavy vehicle passing". I said, "I do not think that that would happen if they were properly chained together". There was a silence: he was not sure whether I was joking.
	We must face up to the need for proper penalties. I remember that not long ago the Prime Minister made a speech about graffiti and said that people would be set to scrub it off. The speech received a lot of publicity; it was a good speech. But how many of your Lordships have seen people scrubbing off graffiti? Within a few hundred yards of the Palace of Westminster, on Lambeth Bridge, there is always graffiti on the pillars. That is unacceptable and unnecessary.
	Let me turn to the obligations to clear litter on roads. As I understand it, the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and local authorities have contractors whose responsibility it is. I am not saying that that is the best way to do it, but that is how it is done. Contracts are given to contractors to clear litter. How come, then, that the roads are filthy with litter?
	Since I entered your Lordships' House, I have on several occasions tabled Questions for Written Answer listing roads that are particularly dirty. Usually, I find that I receive an Answer saying it has been drawn to someone's attention, or a letter is sent from the regional director, or whatever. A few weeks later, when I go along that road, the road is cleaner. But it should not be for a Member of Parliament to have to table a Question about a particular road—although, given that it seems to work, I encourage your Lordships to do so. Next time you are on a road and you find it filthy, table a Question for Written Answer giving details of the road. You will get an Answer and may get results.
	But I go much further. There is a contractual obligation for picking up litter and public money is being spent, but the service is not being provided. The National Audit Office should investigate the terms of the contract and how the contracts are monitored and report to Parliament to do something about it. The present situation is thoroughly unsatisfactory.
	Finally, picking up litter is a satisfying opportunity. When my children, my wife and I go on holiday, we normally start by cleaning up wherever we are—a beach in Cornwall, Greece or wherever. It is great fun. Litter attracts litter. If one picks up litter, there will be much less litter for quite a long time. That is a fact. I do not know why it is the case, but it is.
	I am chairman of my parish council—that is in the Register of Members' Interests. That is the most important position that I have ever had and ever will have. All the Marlesford parish councillors have litter pickers—which are inexpensive to buy. We each have a bit of the parish to keep clean. That is easy, fun and thoroughly satisfactory.
	I got involved in the political process for one reason only: it infuriated me to see things that needed to be done and were not being done. That is why I went into politics. That is why, in a matter as simple as this, which the noble Lord, Lord Hardy, has rightly brought to our attention, we need action now. I should like to feel that if we have another such debate in a year's time, we shall be able to praise the Government on their progress.

The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath, on securing this debate and express my admiration for his perseverance. I remember him telling us in great detail about litter problems when we debated the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, and on many other occasions.
	Wrapping in plastic has transformed our lives. When people go out nowadays, whether they are housewives or not, they no longer have to take a basket, a gunny sack or anything like that. They go to buy their goods and are given the necessary bags or whatever to take them home again. I must express an interest in the subject, first, as a resident of a scenic area who has to spend time picking up litter that has been left from people's shopping expeditions. Perhaps I may point out to my noble friend Lord Marlesford that in my area school children used to go out picking up litter but it has now been ruled as dangerous because of the risk of infection. Therefore, in my area no school children go out picking up litter, only those who do so voluntarily.
	I also express an interest as a farmer who in some ways creates the litter which people accuse those in the countryside of harbouring. Plastic has transformed the lives not only of ordinary people in the street but of the farming and horticultural industries. It has the ability to keep out moisture and air. However, if I order five tonnes of feed for the sheep in the fields, I also receive 200 plastic bags. If I make silage, it is either bailed or sheeted in plastic and when travelling around the country one can now see fields covered in strips of plastic. I hope that I shall be forgiven for saying that as commercial enterprises are involved not all the plastic is tidied up the way it should be. Given our coastal maritime climate, a certain amount of it can be scattered around the countryside.
	Thanks to research undertaken by the Library, I discovered that the National Farmers Union told a sub-committee of the other place that the industry generates 81,000 tonnes of plastic waste per annum. Agricultural wrapping used to be easily disposed of when it was either hessian bags or sisal twine—they could be buried or left to rot. But the present advice on plastic disposal is either to bury it on the farm or pay for it to be carted away and buried somewhere else. That would remove the great bulk of the waste that is difficult to keep track of.
	The Government, when they saw the problem coming, tried to impose a levy on the UK manufacturers of plastic in order to finance a fund to collect and dispose of it. The problem was that as soon as the extra cost hit our plastic manufacturers, the agricultural trade found it could buy much cheaper plastic elsewhere. We were then flooded with cheap plastic from overseas. The suggested financing system fell on its face.
	Currently the odd do-it-yourself scheme can be found whereby hauliers making empty return journeys will, for a donation, pick up a package of plastic and take it to a processor. The problem is that current technology for creating anything of further use is so poor that it is not economic for the processors to collect the plastic for themselves. The process available does not produce a product of any quality and therefore there is a lack of finance.
	That might seem a small issue when DEFRA tells us that this country was required to dispose of 29 million tonnes of waste in 1999-2000. But the disposal of plastic is also a problem as regards municipal waste. Currently we recycle only 11 per cent of municipal waste and 80 per cent of it goes into landfill. Like our farm plastic, it is merely buried in the ground.
	The problem for the Government is that we are tied into the European Commission's landfill directive, 1999/31/ED, which will require us to recycle three times as much of our waste as we do at present. I was pleased to see that the Government have a proposal for a waste recycling action programme. Some public relations person has done a good job because the acronym is WRAP. However, if we are to have any chance of meeting the target, the Government must be sure that enough of the landfill tax which is presently being raised goes into research to produce the most beneficial methods of disposal.
	A few weeks ago it was reported on the BBC that Downing Street advisers say we face fines from the European Union of up to £500,000 per day if we do not meet the target that is given under that directive. So it appears to be an issue which the Government cannot afford to ignore and it would greatly help the litter problem.

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, the problems associated with litter are familiar to everyone. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath, for introducing the debate today. Litter is not just unsightly; it increases the risk of accidents and can present a serious health risk. People say that they feel less comfortable in a littered area than in a clean area. There is no doubt that litter is a serious problem.
	It is also an expensive problem. Perhaps I may remind your Lordships that it costs around £370 million a year to remove litter from our streets, waterways and open spaces. It costs £2.5 million a year to remove rubbish and litter from our beaches alone. It costs a further £5 million to remove shopping trolleys dumped in rivers and ponds.
	The removal of litter is vital in ensuring that communities are clean, safe and attractive places to be. I am pleased to see that the Government have introduced a number of measures this year to help local authorities keep streets and open spaces clean, including the introduction of street wardens.
	However, I must confess that I was rather concerned by the recent MORI poll, whose results suggested that the British public believe that Britain's towns and cities are dirtier than those in the rest of western Europe. Thirty-nine per cent of respondents said that litter was a contributory factor in making them feel uncomfortable in Britain's streets. I should be grateful if the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, could outline what progress has been made thus far in improving the overall cleanliness of communities around the UK as a result of the "three-pronged attack" announced in March and of other more recent measures.
	In other surveys of the British public's attitude towards litter, results have suggested that tougher enforcement of higher fines would be the biggest disincentive to those tempted to drop litter. Eighty-three per cent of people questioned in the MORI survey said that they had some knowledge of the law with regard to littering. Presumably the imposition of fines commands widespread support. I wonder!
	I should be interested to learn whether the Government plan to increase the fine on those caught dropping litter from the current £25 fixed penalty. Fines can be doubly effective in purely economic terms. They can deter people from dropping litter and free up resources to tackle the existing problem.
	The cost of the problem is set to increase markedly over the next few years, with tougher targets placing new demands on local authorities. I wonder whether the Government consider increased fines as one way of helping to meet these targets.
	Ensuring that litter is collected frequently enough to keep streets and open spaces clean is the first phase of the litter problem. The second is its disposal. The Government rightly have accepted a tough challenge in the form of the EU landfill directive. We have already heard a certain amount about that today. Under the directive, Britain is required to reduce the amount of biodegradable household waste disposed of in landfill from the present level of 85 per cent to no more than 35 per cent by 2020, compared with 1995 levels. In addition, as has also been pointed out today, we have been warned that tough financial penalties could result from non-compliance.
	If we consider that the amount of waste emanating from Britain is growing by 3 per cent per year, the implication is that we will have to double our waste disposal capacity by 2020. If we also consider that around 54 per cent of commercial and industrial waste and 83 per cent of municipal waste is currently managed by landfill, it is clear that the EU target is an extremely tough one to meet. The proposed reduction in waste going to landfill is most welcome, but it is far from clear how we can achieve that reduction so quickly by using other forms of waste disposal, without a radical improvement in other facilities.
	The taxes imposed on those using landfill is one way in which the Government are seeking to reduce the proportion of waste being disposed of in this manner. Do the Government envisage any further increase in landfill taxes in order to help local authorities direct resources into other means of waste disposal? Use of such revenue would seem to be the only way in which recycling and composting facilities can be brought up to scratch.
	We should bear in mind the targets for value recovery announced in May 2000 in the Government's waste strategy. Britain's current recycling performance does not compare favourably with that of some other European countries. We recycle only 6 per cent of household waste, compared with 18 per cent in Germany, 28 per cent in the Netherlands and 42 per cent in Switzerland. Incidentally, the United States records an impressive 24 per cent. Members of the public, businesses and local authorities appear to be of one mind on the subject of recycling, but can carry out their good intentions only if they have sufficient resources to do so. I should be most grateful to the noble Baroness if she would give your Lordships some idea of the Government's plans to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to help improve Britain's recycling record. Of particular interest would be the provision of an efficient doorstep service for the collection of recyclable goods. As the option of landfill becomes less viable, it seems sensible and desirable that value recovery should become the guiding principle in the future of waste disposal.
	Fly-tipping presents a further problem. It is immensely frustrating for landowners and local authorities when large items are disposed of illegally on their land. The noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath, mentioned the problem of discarded refrigerators, to which we shall return tomorrow. Landowners and local authorities have to pick up the bill for ensuring that the items are disposed of properly. There is evidence to suggest that fly-tipping is on the increase. While the Government have expressed their commitment to helping local authorities enforce the littering laws, at present it seems that the authorities are bearing the additional financial burden of fly-tipping. The DTLR Select Committee has suggested increased fines for such "environmental crimes", but of course those will be effective only if local authorities are able to enforce them.
	Finally, I welcome the Government's pledge to be the "greenest government" ever. Good luck to them; they will certainly need it in order to go some way towards fulfilling that pledge if Britain is to avoid heavy financial penalties in the future. But confronting the problem of litter is not only about avoiding penalties. It is a ubiquitous problem and commands a high degree of consensus. The challenge lies in devising a suitable means of reducing the enormous amount of waste generated by Britain and removing some of the energy available from that waste. The removal of litter is one very obvious issue in the context of a much wider problem.
	I look forward to hearing more about the ways in which the Government will build on the progress that has been made so far. They will have to become much swifter in order to keep up with the increasing amount of waste that is being generated by the day in Britain.

Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I am speaking tonight on behalf of the Front Bench but I am sitting on a Back Bench. That is only right and proper because almost certainly I shall say something with which the Front Bench would disagree.
	This is an extremely important subject and one which has been extraordinarily well expressed by the noble Lord who moved the debate, the noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath. He has had a long interest in the subject. He touched on the core of it when he spoke of his experience as a schoolmaster, where it proved both necessary and effective to convince young people of the good they would do if they took the attitude that waste should be tidied up and, further, that they too have a responsibility not only for picking up rubbish but also for not creating it. In many foreign countries a much better attitude is shown towards the problem. I recall seeing a group of Czech schoolchildren: they were unwrapping their sweets and then carefully tucking the wrappers into their pockets. As I have said, attitude is extremely important.
	The noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, made a good point about forcing manufacturers to pay. There is no question about that. Let us take the example of milk cartons. It is far cheaper to buy plastic milk cartons because they are non-returnable and, unlike bottles, they do not need to be washed or steamed. The Government are quite right to impose a penalty to be borne by the packagers of milk, given the lower costs of production. Similarly, the noble Duke quoted remarkable figures about the amount of plastic material used on farms. He had done his homework, which I never do. It is a problem that one can see all over the countryside. A strong case can be made for the manufacturers, whether or not they are based abroad, to bear the costs of collecting such material.
	The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, put his finger on the problem when he said that recycling is way below par in this country. We need to do something about it. When one goes into a shop, plastic materials are poured out in all directions. The situation is ludicrous. A better system of collection is needed. In my local city of Dundee the authorities have been trying hard, with some success, to arrange the separation of waste in order to do something with it. All those points are enormously important.
	Another area in which we are making no progress—I should like the Minister to comment on this—is incineration. The incineration of waste can supply both heat and power and is a very economic method of dealing with the material. However, it has failed in the main because of the attitude of local citizens, who strongly oppose incineration plants because in the past the machinery was of doubtful quality. But we need to look again at the proposal.
	The noble Lord, Lord Hardy, rightly has been complimented on bringing forward this subject. It is only a pity that more noble Lords have not taken an interest.
	Let me finish by reflecting on what led me to take part in the debate. The reason is quite simple. Earlier today I walked down Whitehall from the Farmers' Club—which has a great many distinguished residents from this House—to the Palace of Westminster. Everywhere I looked I could see discarded paper cups and lids, shreds of paper and so forth. The scene was an absolute mess. After lunch I walked along Whitehall once again and the pavement was a little better. But I was shocked beyond measure when I looked at the statues of three great men, Field Marshal Alanbrooke, Field Marshal Slim and Field Marshal Montgomery, and saw that they were surrounded by leaves, newspapers, lids and cartons. It has been that way for a long time. The Ministry of Defence could at least clean around these heroes of our time in the way that we clean up the leaves in our gardens several times before winter.
	This is a subject of enormous importance and the Government should take it seriously. We should all follow the example of the noble Lord and raise the issue again, because obviously there will not be the progress we desire.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hardy, for this timely opportunity to highlight the problem of litter. For the second time today I declare an interest—one that we all have—in that I am against litter. Fortunately for me, this is not only a farming problem but a much more general one; we are all concerned about litter. I am sure that we have all experienced the dumping of various materials other than litter along our roadsides and in our gateways. Items such as sofas and burnt-out cars get dumped on a regular basis.
	The debate is timely because the problem of litter is always worse where large numbers of people congregate in holiday or festive mood. We are coming up to that time of the year again. Should anyone doubt me, I suggest that they ask some of the people who have to clear up after big events and festivals such as the Town and Country, Glastonbury or Silverstone, or those who have to bin the aftermath of any major sporting contest, be it Premiership football or a Test Match.
	I cannot believe anyone would dispute my assertion that litter is a problem. As other noble Lords have suggested, it affects our safety and that of our children. It impinges on the success or otherwise of our tourist initiatives; and it costs an enormous amount of money to control.
	The noble Lord, Lord Hardy, said that even where litter bins are provided people dump litter in the street. He also reflected on the need to teach our children about the problem. I am sure he is right.
	Perhaps I may remind the House about the "Keep Britain Tidy" campaign, which I believe is held in April each year. If it is not, the Minister will put me right. We could probably make more of that week in highlighting the problem of litter. Certainly my family have been involved in such campaigns. My noble friend Lord Marlesford referred to that issue and to the importance of encouraging schoolchildren to keep Britain tidy. He also suggested that community service orders should include a requirement for people to collect litter, particularly where they have disposed of it.
	My noble friend the Duke of Montrose highlighted an aspect of the problem which I suspect the Minister has not considered—that is, the greater use of plastic by farming communities. It is a problem. I know that farmers would appreciate any help the Government can give in the recycling of plastic, which is, on the whole, heavy plastic.
	My noble friend Lord Glentoran spoke about the demands on local authorities and the ways in which they manage to deal with waste.
	We applaud the European Commission's efforts to control the amount of packaging material used to cover non-perishable items and its ruling on the disposal of certain white goods, notably fridges and freezers. When, however, will the Government use their position "in the vanguard of European thinking" to persuade their continental colleagues to force manufacturers of gum products to pay for the regular cleaning of all public tarmacadamed or concreted walkways.
	I pause for a moment to reflect that if Lord Long was still in the House, he would surely have spoken in the debate. As many noble Lords will remember, he was a champion for disposing of the dreadful gum product which is deposited on our walkways.
	Will the Government find a way to prohibit the production of mass produced, intentional litter? By this I mean all the loose material which is added to newspapers and magazines; pamphlets, and so on, which are delivered by the Post Office, unaddressed and unfranked; and all the advertising bumf that we get through our doors on a regular basis. Do we really need, for example, when we buy an electric appliance, a thick booklet which tells us how to use it in a dozen different languages? All we need is a booklet printed in the language of our own country. Have the Government raised that matter with the European Commission?
	Moving from the roads to the railways, now that the Government have taken over from Railtrack, will they insist that whichever institution takes control in the future it will give an immediate and on-going priority to its responsibility for cleaning the tracks, the stations and marshalling yards? Having served on a transport committee, I understand that the removal of litter from marshalling yards and stations is the responsibility of Railtrack; the train operators are not allowed to move it. It is a very strange situation where the company responsible for removing litter from stations is not doing so. Yet the litter in stations gives a dreadful impression to those coming to visit a particular area, be it in a city or in the country.
	As I travel around the country—which I do quite a lot—I notice that private companies such as B&Q and Tesco, to name but two, seem to help in the collection of not only paper but of clothing, shoes and textiles, whereas most municipal bodies do not. Can the Minister explain why?
	Can she also explain why, over and over again, I read of councils,
	"trialling the doorstep collection of newspapers or the kerbside uplifting of garden rubbish"?
	Surely there need be only one or two trials followed by universal implementation of a scheme? When will the Government ensure uniformity of uptake—or do they believe that each council should decide for itself?
	Several noble Lords referred to fly tipping. We all agree that this is a disgusting, dangerous and unnecessary practice. Gateways, side roads, lay-bys, field entrances and public paths are constantly blocked by cut-down leylandii, old furniture, household rubbish and unwanted toys. I have been told recently that an old greenhouse—with broken concrete and glass, rotten wood and shards of pottery—was found on a pathway used by children to reach a playground. Surely it costs far more for the council to trundle around to collect it than to concentrate on the perpetrator who is tipping illegally. Are the Government considering siting CCTV cameras in known dumping hot-spots, or perhaps considering the use of mobile speed cameras? These would all help in this regard.
	A particular aspect of litter that has long concerned and puzzled me—it has not been raised by other noble Lords—is the dumping of used hypodermic needles. I believe that in Edinburgh, for example, the drug clinics operate a needle exchange system. To get a new, sharp needle, you have to hand in an old, blunt one. I also understand, however, that obtaining needles privately is relatively easy but relatively costly. These kinds of needles are then used, reused and abandoned wherever addicts congregate. The needles are dirty, rusty and covered in bugs, and they are a great danger to children. Will the Minister consult her counterparts in the Department of Health, the DTI and the Home Office to ensure that hypodermic needles are rendered unavailable to Joe Public, with severe penalties for anyone caught supplying them?
	The whole issue may be likened to a system of interlocking vicious circles. Someone discovers the power of the printed word, so people and companies produce more and more of it; someone else realises that the distribution of this material will be big business, and therefore it is incorporated and companies start to offer this kind of service; and then, before you can say "Jack Rabbit", here we are going the full circle again and producing more and more.
	I want to touch briefly on the Environmental Services Association. In its Annual Statement 2001-2002 the chief executive's report states:
	"The UK also has the capacity to generate over 500MW of electricity from non-hazardous waste, in facilities operated to the highest standards and tightly regulated by the Environment Agencies".
	Later the report comments on a speech by Mr Dirk Hazell at the Environmental Services Training and Education Trust conference:
	"Noting the lack of progress in turning 'aspiration in the National Waste Strategies into practical achievement', the main body of Mr Hazell's speech dealt with the policies of the Government over the previous year: not only were the National Waste Strategies still largely unfunded, but there had also been, in a General Election year"—
	sadly—
	"lack of political will and focus".
	The report continues:
	"He was also critical of the Government's decision to exclude energy from waste from the Renewables Obligation, which was to all intents and purposes a stealth tax on incineration equivalent to £9 per tonne of waste and being 'not obviously consistent with the commitment to energy from waste in the National Waste Strategy'".
	Perhaps the noble Baroness will comment on that in her reply.
	We have talked about several different aspects of waste, and I touch on another. Again, the noble Baroness may be surprised, but I believe that I should raise the matter. I believe that the Government have accepted that last year's outbreak of swine fever was probably caused by a waste sandwich being carelessly thrown away. That waste sandwich devastated the pig industry. The foot and mouth disease this year was brought into the country by someone, somewhere, undefined. The Government's reluctance to hold a public inquiry into the foot and mouth debacle is beyond comprehension—even more so since the European Commission is looking into the possibility of establishing such an inquiry.
	At a conference on 12th December, addressing some 450 delegates, the Food Safety Commissioner, David Byrne, said that new measures were essential. He said that more resources would be provided to stop illegal imports and contaminated meat. But on previous occasions when I have challenged the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, about the control of imported food, he has suggested that this is a European matter. Again, I refer the House to the item at Question Time today.
	The control of legal and illegal imports of meat rests firmly with the nation state. What extra resources do the Government intend to make available at all ports of entry? Has the number of inspectors been increased since the outbreak? And has legal action been taken against anyone caught bringing unauthorised meat into this country? In answering those questions, will the Minister tell the House how many prosecutions were brought during the same period last year for clearing up areas where people have been caught dumping general rubbish, litter or heavier amounts of rubbish?
	I conclude on a lighter note. It is almost Christmas. I was pleased to see a piece in the press headed:
	"Are you dreaming of a green Christmas? 'Do your bit' for the environment and reduce the UK's three million tonne festive waste mountain".
	The article stated that British families will enjoy their Christmas festivities and that,
	"eating, drinking and giving gifts are likely to create over three million tonnes of festive rubbish ... predicts the 'are you doing your bit?' campaign ... Six million Christmas trees; 4,200 tonnes of aluminium foil; 125,000 tonnes of plastic packaging"—
	we are back to that—
	"80,000 tonnes of old clothes and other waste textiles; 83 square kilometres of wrapping paper (enough to cover an area larger than Guernsey)",
	will be generated this Christmas. The mind boggles.
	Much of this need not end up in the waste bin. We produce more than 29 million tonnes of general household waste each year, and more than half of that can be recycled. So this Christmas, everyone can do their bit for the environment.
	For example, cans and bottles, paper and jars left over from festive celebrations can often be recycled. Many councils now offer doorstep recycling facilities. But there is more that we can do.
	We are in the run-up to Christmas. Again, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hardy, for introducing the debate so well and I thank my noble friends and other noble Lords who have spoken. It raises a very important issue. I hope that not only will noble Lords have a happy Christmas themselves, but that they will also remember that we, too, can "do our bit" to make this a green Christmas.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Hardy of Wath for introducing this important debate. I wholeheartedly agree with him: as the Prime Minister noted in a speech he gave in April, in isolation a small amount of vandalism here or graffiti there may seem trivial, but the combined effect can seriously undermine the local quality of life—a point recognised by all speakers. The failure to tackle small-scale problems can lead to environmental blight and more serious crime.
	I pay tribute to schools such as Pimlico School, which—as my noble friend Lord Hardy recognised—patently do a detailed job in encouraging young people not to drop litter in the community. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford. The only slight hesitation I have is that, during my years in local government chairing an education committee in a large authority, I did not come across a single school where this subject was not tackled in its own way, both at primary and at secondary level.
	Since the introduction of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, it has become the responsibility of local authorities to enforce environmental legislation with regard to antisocial behaviour and environmental crimes. The Act provides local authorities with powers to take action against those who drop litter. They may employ litter wardens who can issue a fixed penalty fine. The first point I make to noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Hardy, who raised the issue, is that if that money is not paid within 14 days the litterer can be prosecuted and, if convicted, face a maximum fine of £2,500.
	In response to a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, and my noble friend Lord Hardy, the Government are increasing the fixed penalties. The fixed penalties for litter and dog fouling will be increased from £25 to £50. The changes will come into force in April 2002. Of course, under the devolution settlement, this applies in England only.
	The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, and the noble Lord, Lord Hardy, raised the question of local authorities keeping the money. Currently, under Section 88(6)(a) of the Environmental Protection Act, local authorities are required to surrender the proceeds from fixed penalty notices. Under the local public service agreement pilot initiative, the department has agreed to a pilot trial for five local authorities, in which grants will be paid equal to the fixed penalty notice fine income that they collect. The current local PSA pilot runs from April 2001 until March 2004. We intend to extend the scheme on a voluntary basis to other top-tier authorities, county councils, unitary metropolitan districts and London boroughs over the next two to three years.
	At this point, I want to pay tribute to the work of parish councils. Often, action by parish councils at local level and in the local environment can encourage children to see this as a local issue and part of their community—especially if the adults are, as the noble Lord was, taking great steps to improve the local environment for those children.
	It is clear from the debate that the public need assurance that local authorities care about the environment. A large number of neighbourhood warden schemes are being set up by local authorities. The Home Office has recently tabled a series of reassurance outcomes papers with the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Police Federation. At local level, schemes are currently being piloted in which wardens work closely with community police officers, who will act as beat managers, helping to direct and co-ordinate the operations of the many agencies working in an area to combat crime and disorder.
	Under the pathfinders scheme announced by my right honourable friend Michael Meacher in March and to which the Government have committed £1 million, we are seeking to identify innovative approaches and promote existing best practice in local environmental wardening. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, agrees that the best in local government is that which develops at local level to meet local circumstances.
	I understand the concern that my noble friend Lord Hardy and others have raised about the problem of dumping and fly tipping. The important issue of refrigerators was raised. The penalties for fly tipping are already potentially severe—up to five years' imprisonment and an unlimited fine if convicted in a Crown Court. I am sure that my noble friend will be gratified to know that we have just announced a £6 million support package to help local authorities provide safe storage and disposal of unwanted household fridges until the means of removing CFCs before disposal can be put in place.
	Fly tipping and the dumping of items such as fridges are major problems, but the scale of the problem recognised by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, and others is even greater when it comes to the cars that litter our streets, foul our environment and damage our rural lakes. With the decline in the scrap metal market and difficulties in getting rid of worn tyres, that has become a major problem. We have carried out a review of the current legislation and come up with options to reduce the notice periods used by local authorities and to improve the accuracy of the vehicle register, which is an important part of tackling the perpetrators.
	A joint DEFRA and DTLR consultation exercise was launched on 31st October. I have a copy of the document for any noble Lords who wish to see it. Those who share the Government's concern on the issue will be pleased to know that the consultation period does not end until the end of January 2002. Following that, we intend to produce regulations in the spring. Those who wish to write in with their views on this important issue still have time to do so.
	There are other major items, such as the problem of fast food litter, which causes great unhappiness, because many such items end up in the areas that cause concern to noble Lords. In response to the query of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, I point out that in March my right honourable friend Michael Meacher called on the heads of the fast food industry to work with him to develop a voluntary code of best environmental practice. The code must be based on best practice for preventing and clearing up litter. We want a real commitment to minimising packaging and supporting the recycled and environmentally friendly use of materials. We agree with the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, that this is an important issue. We have made it clear that if a voluntary code does not show a marked improvement, we shall take action.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, asked about Railtrack. Under the DTLR code of practice on litter and refuse, Railtrack has a duty to keep its land clear of litter. Areas accessible to the public should be cleaned within hours. Areas not accessible to the public are cleaned within weeks or months, depending on whether the land is trackside or depot. I shall take up the noble Baroness's point about such litter not only being an eyesore, but ending up being dispersed elsewhere. We all know about the problem of security and the difficulty of not being able to provide litter receptacles on stations.
	The noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, and my noble friend Lord Hardy referred to CCTV. Local authorities have the power to use CCTV. The main barrier to using this method of enforcement is the availability of the cameras and the cost of using the technology. We hope that increasing the fixed penalty notices for littering offences and allowing top-tier local authorities to retain the fines will encourage them to use new technology more effectively.
	The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, referred to landfill tax. The Government have announced that landfill tax will increase by £1 a tonne every year up to 2004.
	The importance of the programme involving local authorities has also been mentioned. More than 30 local authorities are working in 10 consortiums developing best environmental practice, dealing with litter, graffiti, fly tipping, fly posting and related issues. They will report back next October.
	As the noble Lords, Lord Mackie and Lord Marlesford, pointed out, many acts of graffiti are carried out by young people. Successful measures are important in that area. The subject is covered by police school liaison officers during regular visits to primary and secondary schools. There are many action groups, including more than 1,200 youth action groups in England and Wales. Many of them have tackled issues such as graffiti. We support the idea of youth action groups and are looking, together with the DfES, Crime Concern and Neighbourhood Watch, to develop such groups into the wider community.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, and the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, raised the issue of agricultural waste, particularly the disposal of farm waste plastics. That key area of discussion will be included in the soon to be released consultation document on agricultural waste. The publication of the paper was delayed, initially by consultation with the NFU and more recently by the outbreak of foot and mouth disease. The consultation paper will be released early in 2002. We wish to discuss with all concerned—the NFU, the Country Landowners' Association and a wide range of organisations—the best way to tackle this recognised problem.
	The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, and the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, raised the issue of other member states. For too long, we in the United Kingdom have lagged behind much of Europe and America in managing our waste. The waste strategy 2000 is designed to change that. We also have targets under the EC packaging directive and we are determined to meet them. They are staged—particularly the recycling targets, which are material specific—from 7 per cent, in 1998, to 18 per cent, in 2001. Local authorities have the power to require householders to place certain types of waste, such as recyclables, in different containers. Although I note that the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, believes that that power which is given to local authorities should be a duty, I believe that we have to work with local authorities as they develop their own schemes. Nevertheless we recognise the importance of the issue.
	Many local authorities provide separate points to collect and exchange used needles for new ones. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, will be aware of the sensitivity in localities where some people feel that providing a needle exchange is encouraging drug abuse. However, I note the importance of the point.
	In 1999-2000, 87 per cent of local authorities recycled cans—to the tune of 13,000 tonnes—and 97 per cent of local authorities recycled paper and card. It has been a major contribution in addressing the waste issue. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, I am pleased that so many local authorities are offering recycling facilities. I too dream of a green Christmas, and I am pleased to be able to tell her that more than 250 councils are offering Christmas tree recycling facilities.
	I am not able to answer all the questions in detail; indeed, I have slightly over-run my time. Community service orders are used in tackling litter. The very best groups such as those running the Keep Britain Tidy campaign use community service orders as part of an overall package. They can play a valuable part in addressing the issue.

Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, convention does not allow me to reply in detail to noble Lords' speeches. However, I should like to thank noble Lords for their significant and supportive comments and their kind words. I am particularly grateful to my noble friend Lady Farrington, whose speech should command very careful attention. I should also like to echo the seasonally relevant words of the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, by wishing all noble Lords a very happy and unlittered festive time. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

European Union Extradition Regulations 2002

Lord Rooker: rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 17th December be approved [14th Report from the Joint Committee].

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I hope that it is convenient for your Lordships if I keep my remarks as brief and tightly focused as possible. These are modest regulations made under Sections 111 and 112 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 which received Royal Assent last week. For the avoidance of doubt, I repeat that the regulations do not give effect to the European arrest warrant. That is an entirely different subject which has attracted much attention and will be dealt with in another Bill—primary legislation—to be introduced early in the new year.
	The regulations give effect to two conventions: the 1995 convention, signed on 10th March 1995, and the 1996 convention, signed on 27th September 1996. It is fairly obvious that neither the government who were in office in 1995-96 nor the one in office in 1997-2001 thought the conventions sufficiently important to merit introduction in major primary legislation. That is an important point. Although the conventions are important, they are modest; that is why they have been hanging around for a while. No legislative vehicle was available to implement them and they do not in themselves merit the parliamentary time necessary for implementation. I shall not go into the details for that.
	The conventions also contain nothing new. Indeed, they were the impetus for the major review of extradition law that began in 1997. That review led in turn to the consultation paper The Law on Extradition: a Review which was published earlier this year and made nine specific recommendations. The consultation period ended only in October. The responses to that consultation have been placed in the Library and will help form the basis of next year's extradition Bill. The parliamentary scrutiny process was conducted while the treaties were being negotiated. Therefore, in that respect, it is all water under the bridge.
	I shall briefly describe the conventions. The 1995 convention provides a streamlined procedure for cases in which the fugitive and the requested state consent to extradition. That is basically what the 1995 convention is about.
	The 1996 convention made various amendments to the provisions of the then treaty. Its main provisions are to reduce the extradition crime threshold from 12 months in both the requested and the requesting state to 12 months in the requesting state and six months in the requested state. It also provides for abolition of the political offence exception. The regulations deal exclusively with European Union extradition, and I think that noble Lords will agree that political offences do not play a role in the EU's 15 member states.
	The 1996 convention also provides that a person who has been extradited may be proceeded against for an offence committed before surrender, other than that upon which the request for extradition was based, without obtaining the consent of the requesting member state when the offence is not punishable by imprisonment or any other form of detention or when the person will not be detained in connection with his trial, sentence or appeal. The provisions relate, in other words, to quite trivial matters.
	The 1996 convention also provides for relaxation of the authentication requirements, which is particularly important for the United Kingdom as it is widely recognised that our authentication requirements are among the most onerous in Europe. The 1996 convention also makes other minor changes.
	We are seeking now to implement the regulations under the 2001 Act because, although the majority of countries have ratified the treaties, a few, including the United Kingdom, have not. In late September 2001, after the events of 11th September, it was agreed at the Justice and Home Affairs Council, and a commitment was given, that all member states would ratify the treaties by 1st January 2002. That is why the legislation was introduced as it was and why we are seeking, subject to your Lordships' approval, to ratify the two treaties. I beg to move.
	Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 17th December be approved [14th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Rooker.)

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, we do not intend to oppose the Motion. Having agreed to the amendment to the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 specifically to allow the conventions to be incorporated into United Kingdom law by secondary legislation, it would be illogical now to oppose the regulations. Indeed, we broadly welcome them.
	I think that the 1995 convention is relatively unimportant as it simply gives powers that are dependent on the consent of the subject of the extradition proceedings. The 1996 convention, however, is quite important. It is a matter for some regret that neither the current Government nor their predecessors thought it fit not to find time to ratify that convention until now.
	If the European Union means anything, it means a mutual respect for each other's institutions. I believe that that respect is broadly justified. All 15 of the member states are now well-established democracies; all have independent legal systems. Some legal systems are better than others but we should be unwise to conclude that ours is necessarily or obviously the best.
	We welcome many provisions of the 1996 convention; for example, Article 3 which makes it easier to obtain extradition for the crime of conspiracy. Of course, that is a form of crime which has always been recognised by United Kingdom law but not by all mainland systems. We welcome Articles 5 and 6 involving removal of the ban on extradition for so-called political offences and the extension of extradition to fiscal offences. Those are both exceptions which are anachronistic in the European Union context and should not apply between countries which are working democracies.
	Article 7 deals with the extradition of nationals. Of course, we have never prohibited the extradition of United Kingdom nationals but some countries do. Austria, Germany and Greece have unconditional bans on the extradition of their own nationals and Finland and Sweden allow it subject only to highly restricted conditions. I believe that those restrictions have no place in the European Union and I hope that the Government will put pressure on those countries to have those restrictions removed.
	A number of other governments will extradite their own nationals only on condition that the accused will be returned, if convicted, to serve a sentence in their home country. That is something to which I see no objection and, indeed, probably should be a general principle.
	I just pause for a moment to note that in Article 8, there is a typing mistake in the cross-heading which refers not to the "lapse" of time but to the "laspe" of time. We hope that that matter will be corrected before the document is actually published.
	We welcome the modification of the so-called specialty rule in Articles 10 and 11 to make it easier to prosecute people for offences which were additional to those for which they are extradited and we welcome the simplification of the authentication procedure in Article 15. Undoubtedly, the United Kingdom has caused serious problems to extradition applications by other states by its excessively bureaucratic requirements for authentication.
	We are happy to endorse this order but our main comment is that we very much regret having to wait so long to see these sensible provisions incorporated into United Kingdom law so that we could ratify the two conventions.

Lord Kingsland: My Lords, hitherto such measures would have required primary legislation since they do not fall within Sections 2(1) or 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972. However, as your Lordships are well aware, an exception has now been made for them in the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. As the Minister well recalls, the legislative list of exceptions, of which this is one, was finally accepted with, I think I should say, deep misgivings by both the official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats.
	In our view, there are no legitimate parallels to be drawn between implementing Part I and Part VI of the treaty. Part I measures, implemented by Sections 2(1) and 2(2) of the 1972 Act, have three characteristics which make the use of statutory instruments acceptable, if not desirable.
	First, it is clear that, for such matters, EC law takes precedence over national law; and the European Court of Justice has a wide range of powers to ensure that national implementing measures conform strictly with the requirements of directives and decisions.
	Secondly, all Part I measures are the subject of thorough public scrutiny and amendment by the European Parliament and usually require co-decision. Thirdly, the measures concern economic and commercial regulation and rarely touch on issues pertaining to the liberty of the subject.
	None of those factors applies to matters falling within Part VI of the treaty. First, the extent to which Community law takes precedence over national law is unclear. Moreover, that lack of clarity is enhanced in Britain's case because, unlike many other states, we have not acceded to the jurisdiction of the European Court as a direct means of furnishing a source of conflict resolution.
	Secondly, the measures are subject to no public scrutiny whatever. They are initially discussed at meetings of senior civil servants; outstanding differences are then considered at meetings of COREPER; and any remaining conflicts are resolved by Ministers at the Justice and Home Affairs Council. Finally, extradition touches on the liberty of the subject in the most obvious and intimate way.
	Happily, the Government have recognised those differences by limiting the derogation in the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act to a period of six months. But, important though it is to preserve primary legislation as the means of implementation in that area, there is a limit to the extent to which it can compensate for any deficiencies in the Community measure itself. The only guarantee that individual rights are respected as we would wish them to be is to ensure that they are fully reflected in the Community instrument.
	How do national legislatures generally, and our own Parliament in particular, achieve that objective? Our Parliament has no direct role in the European Community legislative process as a Parliament. We cannot amend draft directives or draft decisions ourselves. However, Ministers representing the Crown can influence the shape of those measures by tough negotiation and, ultimately if necessary, by refusing to agree; in other words, by using the veto.
	I think your Lordships would accept that the saga of the European arrest warrant has been a harsh lesson for many of us to learn. Parliament needs to find a way to ensure that the negotiating mandate of Ministers is fully debated before discussions begin in earnest in the Community on third pillar matters. In that way, Ministers will have a clear view of what is acceptable to the national legislature and what is not. Parliament also needs to devise a procedure whereby Ministers engaged in third pillar negotiations report back regularly. This is now the new battleground for your Lordships' House and I shall be most interested to hear any reflections on the matter that the Minister might have this evening.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, that I have none whatever this evening.
	I am grateful to noble Lords. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and his team on spotting the error on page 23. I freely admit that I did not spot it myself but this is a draft instrument and that can be corrected.
	A fair point is made about the 1996 convention. Only four countries have not already ratified it; namely, Italy, France, the Republic of Ireland and ourselves. All the other countries of the European Union have undertaken their Community responsibilities and it has passed through their respective parliaments by whichever processes they use.
	I shall not be tempted by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, to go down the road of the European arrest warrant because I said specifically that it is not the subject of this provision. However, over the months and weeks ahead, we shall be preparing for that legislation. That will be in the form of primary legislation. I believe that we reached a settlement at the end of last week which everyone thinks is a good way forward overall. I am grateful for the response that we have had this evening to these regulations, which I commend to the House.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Carriage by Air Acts (Implementation of the Montreal Convention 1999) Order 2001

Lord Filkin: rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 16th November be approved [11th Report from the Joint Committee].

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I shall speak also to the second order in my name on the Order Paper as they are interconnected.
	The two draft orders for debate are to implement in the United Kingdom the provisions of the 1999 Montreal Convention. The convention consolidates and updates the 1929 Warsaw Convention relating to the liability of air carriers in the international carriage by air of passengers, baggage and cargo.
	The principal benefit of the Montreal Convention is that it removes any limitation of liability of air carriers in relation to the amount of compensation payable in the event of death or injury to passengers. It also introduces higher limits for the loss, damage or delay to baggage.
	The Carriage by Air Acts (Implementation of the Montreal Convention 1999) Order 2001 amends the Carriage by Air Act 1961, introducing a new schedule setting out the convention for the purposes of international travel to which it applies and makes consequential amendment.
	The Government have consulted widely with airlines and other interested parties, including the Ministry of Defence and Consignia. We have received broad support from all concerned. I beg to move.
	Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 16th November be approved [11th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Filkin.)

Viscount Astor: My Lords, we support the Motion.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Carriage by Air Acts (Application of Provisions) Order 2001

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name.
	Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 16th November be approved [11th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Filkin.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Driving Licences (Disqualification until Test Passed) (Prescribed Offence) Order 2001

Lord Filkin: rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 15th November be approved [11th Report from the Joint Committee].

Lord Filkin: My Lords, the order, if approved, will mean that anyone convicted of causing death by careless driving when under the influence of drink or drugs will be required to pass a driving test before being allowed back on the road.
	Under Section 36(3) of the 1988 Act, the Secretary of State may by order prescribe other offences involving obligatory endorsement, so that in such cases there would be obligatory disqualification until an extended driving test had been passed. The proposed order, if approved, would extend that requirement to the offence of causing death by careless driving when under the influence of drink or drugs—Section 3A of the Road Traffic Act 1988.
	Your Lordships should also be aware that there is an important consideration with regard to the timing of the order, should it be approved. Subsection (14) of Section 36 of the 1988 Act prevents the Secretary of State from making orders to prescribe further persons convicted of offences to which mandatory retesting should apply after 31st December 2001 if he has not previously made any such orders. I can confirm that this is the first such order. It keeps open the opportunity for the Secretary of State to make further such orders in the future.
	In my view the provisions of this instrument are compatible with the convention rights as defined in Section 1 of the Human Rights Act 1998. I commend the order to the House and hope that noble Lords will feel able to give it their support. I beg to move.
	Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 15th November be approved [11th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Filkin.)

Earl Attlee: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of the order. I have no problem with the order; in fact, I strongly support it. However, we know that a fleet driver training scheme—I refer to a commercial fleet—can reduce the accident rate by about 20 per cent.
	I accept that it would be political suicide and also very expensive to introduce universal driver training schemes, for example a retraining scheme every five years for all drivers. However, we could make a start by introducing compulsory retraining for any motorist who has been convicted of careless driving or certain other motoring offences such as speeding. This issue was raised in the Government's road safety strategy paper but we do not appear to be making much progress on the matter. I should be interested to hear what action the Government propose to take.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, as I am sure the noble Earl is aware, the North committee first introduced the concept of compulsory retesting, which implies also some compulsory retraining as part of that. The order makes compulsory retesting an obligation for two reasons: first, if one has been disqualified and off the road for some time, by definition one loses practical experience and therefore there is a case for requiring retesting and the retraining that goes with it; and, secondly, to prevent the likelihood of a further dangerous situation arising—in other words, to protect the general public from the consequences of what appears to be a dangerous or negligent driver.
	The Government will want to consider whether there are other situations when such circumstances might apply. I agree with the noble Earl that it would be inappropriate to apply compulsory retesting and retraining to everyone. However, there may well be further circumstances in which it would be appropriate. I give the assurance that although primary legislation would be needed to achieve that, we shall consider that principle.

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, we support the order.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Transport Act 2000 (Consequential Amendments) Order 2001

Lord Filkin: rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 15th November be approved [11th Report from the Joint Committee].

Lord Filkin: My Lords, the order deals with some consequential effects of the Transport Act 2000. Part I of the order simply amends the Aviation Security Act 1982 so that NATS—alongside the CAA or the manager of an aerodrome—becomes one of the authorities responsible for the security of an air navigation installation. In other words, they are responsible for the protection of their own equipment.
	Parts II and III of the order amend enactments which refer to statutory and other undertakers and town and country planning legislation to bring them four square with the Transport Act. These powers are broadly commensurate with those of the CAA and are granted to NATS En Route Ltd, which is a subsidiary company of National Air Traffic Services Ltd.
	The order does two other things not connected with NATS. Part IV amends certain provisions which place restrictions on the disclosure of information so as to give the CAA, in its role as economic regulator of air traffic services, access to the same sort of information as other regulators require.
	I hope that your Lordships will support the broad thrust of the order and give your consent to it being made. I beg to move.
	Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 15th November be approved [11th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Filkin.)

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I wish to comment on the order as it transfers permitted developer rights to a private company. We all know, for example, that Railtrack acquired permitted development rights when it was privatised. Since then we have had misgivings as regards some of the uses of those permitted rights.
	NATS has not had a good start in the private sector. I am concerned that the Government are again transferring these quite extensive rights to a private sector company and may live to regret that. It is possible that NATS could stray further from the public sector than it now is and become a different company and exercise those rights in a way which was not intended. That could cause trouble in the future. I hope that the Minister will comment on that.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, the granting of permitted development rights to NATS or its subsidiary company as a statutory undertaker is tightly circumscribed. The rights are to carry out essential development on and around operational land relevant to NATS En Route Ltd. They do not apply to the parent company in its wider position. For example, under this power NATS would not be able to create for itself a new office block on an airport site. It has permitted development rights only in relation to radar installations or air communication systems in a limited number of sites in the United Kingdom.
	The natural anxiety is expressed that a company which is a private company, albeit that the Government have a golden share and the largest shareholding, might do something amiss. That cannot take place in the circumstances because the order is tightly drawn.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Local Authorities (Contracting Out of Highway Functions) (England) Order 2001

Lord Filkin: rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 21st November be approved [11th Report from the Joint Committee].

Lord Filkin: My Lords, in moving the order I speak also to the regulations.
	The first instrument is a contracting out order made under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994. This simply allows a highway authority, if it wishes, to delegate the operation of certain existing functions involving utility street works to another body, for instance a private sector contractor.
	The first of those specific powers involves the keeping of information which the highway authority holds on individual works. The second set of powers relates to the cost of moving utility apparatus already located in highways so as to allow major highway, bridge or transport schemes to be carried out. The final set of functions under the order relates to powers under Section 74 of the New Roads and Street Works Act. As noble Lords will know, these powers allow highway authorities to set up schemes to levy charges on undertakers whose street works overrun an agreed deadline. Those powers were activated in April 2001 and are not connected to the regulations.
	The aim of the regulations is to permit pilot schemes to be operated to test powers to allow highway authorities to levy charges on utilities when the utilities carry out works on the highway.
	The Government are very aware, as I am sure the House is, of strong public concern at the level of disruption caused by street works carried out by statutory undertakers. In April of this year, we activated powers allowing highway authorities to charge undertakers whenever works overran an agreed deadline. We have appointed consultants—Halcrow—to monitor the effect of these powers. They are due to provide Ministers with a full report by May 2002.
	We have already made clear that if these powers do not lead to a sufficient reduction in disruption, we are prepared to activate further powers. Those new powers—"lane rental" as they are commonly called—allow authorities to levy a daily charge on utilities from the start of each works, regardless of whether or not they overrun.
	We intend keeping the lane rental powers in reserve for the time being as regards national application. However, we think that it would be sensible for the powers to be tested locally so that local authorities, utilities and the Government can gain experience from the operation of the pilot schemes. Were the House to approve the regulations, authorities wishing to operate pilot schemes would need to submit formal applications setting out the details of their proposed schemes. Should we be content with their proposals, then they would need to be approved by order. We would expect Camden and Middlesbrough to be ready to start operation of their schemes in the early part of the new year.
	The regulations set a maximum charge of £1,000 a day for each works. But we intend that pilot authorities should not be able to set charges of more than £500 a day for initial street works, with a higher charge if they have to come back to do reinstatement work as a result of rushing the initial works. I beg to move.
	Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 21st November be approved [11th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Filkin.)

Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation of the order. A few years ago there were only five utilities; now I am told that there are several hundred. Some who live in London believe that their street is dug up once a week by a different utility. If there are several hundred utilities, it will be two more years before digging comes to a halt.
	The Minister introduces a new regime. I was interested to note that the National Joint Utilities Group claims that the Government's lane rental proposals would cost the sector £1.2 billion annually and would add £55 to each household utility bill, an equivalent of 8.5 per cent increase in council tax as local authorities would retain lane rental receipts. Can the Minister assure us that during this trial period no costs borne by the utilities will be transferred to the consumers? How much do the Government estimate that the two councils will receive during this trial period? How much have local authorities claimed to date in overruns with regard to utilities digging up the streets? If the Minister does not have the figures, I shall be delighted if he will write to me.
	Having studied the issue somewhat briefly, I note that when a road is newly laid in other countries, utilities are either prevented from, or have to pay more for, digging up that road immediately. There is no doubt that the road does not last if it is continually being dug up. Are the Government considering such a policy?
	We support the order. We agree on the policy regarding overruns. However, if we introduce these costs, charging utilities for laying cables albeit for a trial period, we need to know that the consumer will not have to pay more for those services as a result.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining the order. I, too, am happy with the measure in principle. However, I suspect that the Minister will strike me off his Christmas card list because I believe that the order is defective. I suggest that the Minister does not move his order today.
	Paragraph 5(4), on page 5, specifies the maximum charge allowable. It states:
	"The charge shall, in respect of any set of street works notified in a single notice in any street specified by reference to the National Street Gazetteer, be of an amount determined by the approved authority in accordance with the formula cXd, where—c is such amount, not exceeding £1,000, as the authority decides is appropriate; and d is the duration of the works".
	The problem is that no units are specified for the duration of the works. Therefore, the units could be hours, days or even weeks. The order does not state what the units are. Presumably, paragraph 5(4) should read:
	"... where d is the duration of the works in days or part thereof".
	I therefore suggest that the Minister does not move his order today but redrafts it to make it clearer. Alternatively, if he wishes, he can move it today and amend it at a later date.
	We know that there is some concern in the utilities industry about this order. If the House approves the order today, the industry will want clarity. I intend to help by tabling suitable Questions for Written Answer to discover what the units are, unless, of course, the Minister can help me on that point. If the Minister moves the order today, I shall not oppose it. However, I do not understand what are the units for the duration of the works.

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, we support the order. We believe that much of the protest we have received from the utilities is quite false. Most of the work is done by contractors who work for utilities. They go about their work in a totally irresponsible way; they often put the public to great inconvenience; and it is time that something was done to stop them. I, too, have received lobbying— most of which amounts to special pleading, for which I have little time—that needs to be dismissed.
	I caution the Minister about the use of the word "emergency". As your Lordships will know, I am a member of a local authority and can assure your Lordships that on many occasions the word "emergency" is invoked when local authorities try to get utilities to do works when they want them to be done rather than when the utilities want them to be done. The layman has no means of knowing whether a water, gas or electricity defect is an emergency or whether the work is being done simply for the convenience of a subcontractor of the utilities involved. Though that matter needs to be addressed, it is not a reason for opposing the order. The order is otherwise supported.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I am grateful to the House for its broad support. I, like other noble Lords, have received a number of representations on this matter. When the Government consulted on it, it was noticeable that virtually everyone apart from the utilities, whether the AA, the RAC, local authorities or consumer organisations, was very strongly in favour of the introduction of these powers. But, naturally, the industry to have the burden imposed on it in the first instance was opposed to them.
	The question on whom the final bill, if there are such bills, will fall needs to be set against a recognition that the public already incurs very substantial bills as a consequence of the social or economic cost imposed by street works delays. The Transport Research Laboratory has estimated a cost in excess of £2 billion per year as a consequence of these works—a very substantial sum of money.
	As noble Lords know, the central argument is that a financial incentive will encourage a shift in behaviour to try to make the organisations manage these functions more energetically. In view of the late hour, I shall not go into any more detail on that.
	The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, asked for confirmation that in the trial period there will be no transfer cost to consumers. The answer is that it is extremely unlikely, for two reasons. First, there are many complex regulations within the framework and it would not be possible in the short time of the transfer for such a payment to go through in all cases. The second, more fundamental reason is that in two local authorities the cost must be seen as de minimis, compared with the nation-wide scale of works that we are discussing. I should be surprised if the utilities or the regulator currently seriously entertained such a venture.
	How much do we estimate that local authorities will receive? The short answer is that we do not know. The purpose of piloting the arrangement is not to use a blunderbuss until we know that it is necessary. We will also learn from the two local authorities—this will be highly researched—about the effects on speeding up street works and on utilities, and whether we can perceive that there might ultimately be an effect on consumers. The question was excellent. The research will grapple to find guidance about the likely impact of such an approach.
	How much has been claimed on overruns so far? There has been some publicity of the figures from Westminster and elsewhere, but I could give a fuller answer if I write to the noble Viscount.
	The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, asked one of the most complicated questions that I have sought to answer from the Dispatch Box. I am pleased to say that the answer is relatively simple—in one word, it is, "days". I shall set that out in more detail, but that is the unit as determined by the schedule to which the noble Earl referred.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, where in the order does it say that days, not weeks or hours, are involved?

Lord Filkin: My Lords, without detaining the noble Earl further by flicking through the order for some minutes, I shall give him an authoritative response by writing to him to explain the provenance of the unit.
	I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, for his support. I note his point about the use of emergency powers in this respect. The Government are alive to the potential risks in that regard. We can look forward to some interesting debates when we begin to get evidence about the first charging systems and the two pilot trials. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, will be in his place for those debates—he is one of the House's great experts on the matter. I commend the order to the House.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Street Works (Charges for Occupation of the Highway) (England) Regulations 2001

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move.
	Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 21st November be approved [11th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Filkin.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	House adjourned at seventeen minutes past nine o'clock.